understanding environmental literacy in america...understanding environmental literacy kevin j....

Understanding Environmental Literacy Kevin J. Coyle

Understanding Environmental Literacy in America:

And Making it a Reality

What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies tell us about how to achieve environmental literacy in America

May 2004

Kevin J. Coyle, J.D. President, National Environmental Education & Training Foundation

[email protected]

© 2004 National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, Washington, D.C.

NEETF/Roper Report -- Draft 0


Foreword:

In the course of a lifetime, an individual will accumulate environmental knowledge from a combination of schools, the media, personal readings, family members and friends, outdoor activities, entertainment outlets, and a wide range of other professional, parental and personal experiences. For a few motivated individuals, this can eventually add up to true environmental literacy. But, for most Americans, it falls far short of this larger goal. These people accumulate a diverse and unconnected smattering of factoids, a few (sometimes incorrect) principles, numerous opinions and very little in-depth understanding. Research shows that they also have a fairly high and mostly inaccurate opinion that they know more about the environment than they actually do. That is why 45 million Americans think the ocean is a source of freshwater, 120 million think spray cans still have CFCs in them though banned in 1978, another 120 million people think disposable diapers are the leading problem with landfills when they are about 1% of the problem, and 130 million believe that hydropower is America’s top energy source, though it accounts for just 10% of the total. It is also why very few people understand the leading causes of air and water pollution or how they should be addressed. Our years of Roper data show a steady pattern of environmental ignorance even among the most educated and influential members of society. This condition is becoming less acceptable and more perilous to society. We are moving beyond a time when we can rely on a cadre of environmental experts to fix our environmental problems. With most environmental issues becoming more complex and difficult to manage and with a shift toward the prevalence of problems that are caused by individuals and smaller businesses and institutions, today’s experts are less well positioned to address tomorrow’s environmental needs without a lot more help from the general public. A stronger public understanding of environmental science and related issues is a growing necessity and comprehensive environmental education is the only answer that makes complete sense. But can we get there? To arrive on time, our leaders will need to understand far more about what, educationally speaking, works and what does not. To the education novice, for example, what seems to be education is really mostly information and therein sits the main environmental literacy problem we face today. Information that is or seems factual on its surface can, by virtue of its superficiality, end up fitting into a false belief and further confusing a comprehensive understanding of a principle or issue. So we need to improve education on the environment. We need to grasp its original promise and make it work. We need to build more support for stewardship through more solid environmental education and even mitigate some of the adverse effects that such major information sources as the media can have on true environmental literacy. This report is about sorting out this complexity in a way the nonexpert can readily see and do something about. Kevin J. Coyle NEETF



Table of Contents Page Foreword 1 Acknowledgements 3 Introduction: 4 Summary: 7 Chapter 1: American Environmental Knowledge Today 12 Chapter 2: The Media’s Mixed Impact on Environmental Literacy 30 Chapter 3: Americans’ Acquisition of Environmental Knowledge 43 Chapter 4: American EE’s Popularity and the Reason for It 50 Chapter 5: Environmental Education and Stewardship in our Youth 54 Chapter 6: Environmental Literacy and Stewardship in Adults 66 Chapter 7: EE and Student Academic Improvement 88 Chapter 8: EE’s Long-term Economic Value 95 Chapter 9: A Plan for Improved Environmental Literacy 102 Appendix 1: Sample Roper Questionnaire 116 Appendix 2: Roper Methodology 119 Appendix 3: Report Bibliography 120 Appendix 4: Bibliography of Needs Assessments and Status Reports in EE 127 Appendix 5: Selected Bibliography of Research Collections and Reviews 131 Appendix 6: Related NEETF/Roper Data Trends 135



Acknowledgements This report started originally as a quick and easy attempt to recap some key findings of 10 years of NEETF/Roper research. Hah! From there, it grew and grew. It is in draft form and still has a way to go. So, please feel free to comment or recommend important information or research that was missed. David Lintern of NOP World (producers of Roper reports) in New York deserves a lion’s share of credit for this report. NEETF could not have asked for a better Roper partner than David. In addition to helping design and test the survey instruments, David, over the course of ten years, often wrote and edited drafts of the reports and has worked with us consistently to maintain research and editorial quality. David’s boss, Ed Keller, and his partner, Jon Berry, also made a significant amount of their research available to this effort particularly with regard to their work on Influential Americans. We also need to acknowledge the important design work that Dr. Lynn Musser, Ph.D. provided in 1997 when we converted the ongoing NEETF/Roper survey to an actual report card on environmental knowledge. It was her expertise, hard work and patient encouragement that made the report card a reality. Francis Pandolfi, former NEETF chair surely deserves acknowledgement and thanks for starting this survey research effort while at Times Mirror Magazines and assisting with Times Mirror’s conveying the survey to NEETF in 1996. Our chair, Dick Bartlett, has also made the writing of this report more possible with his own unique combination of unbounded enthusiasm and sharp critique. In the summer of 2003, Jennifer Bland, a wonderful student intern from Stanford University, ably collected some critical supplemental research used throughout this report to help corroborate (or challenge) and interpret Roper findings. Several reviewers went above and beyond in helping with this report including Michael Rains, a NEETF board member and research director at the USDA Forest Service; Jim Elder who has recently written an important “field guide” to the environmental education movement; and Dr. Tom Marcinkowski of Florida Tech. who strongly and effectively challenged us to focus on using more existing research, getting basic models and definitions down more accurately and thinking harder about what is needed in new research, assessment and evaluation. Tom also provided some very helpful bibliographic reviews of the research that are incorporated in appendices to this report. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation is a congressionally-chartered, private nonprofit organization that supports the development of environmental literacy in its many forms. NOP World, publishers of Roper Reports, is a full-service international research and marketing firm.



Understanding Environmental

Literacy in America -- Introduction:

A Belief Followed by a Question This report is about a widely-held belief followed by a persistent question. The belief is that, if we are ever to get real control of overarching environmental problems, we will need a public that understands them and can address them at their source. It seems natural and intuitive to believe the many complex environmental issues we face in America today need to be addressed through a sound base of education. Most of us can actually visualize it working! We can envision homeowners who recycle and reduce their use of polluting products in the kitchen, laundry, garage and garden. We can see manufacturing plant and shop workers who are more careful about their use of electricity and their disposal of waste. And we can see business managers who are running cleaner operations and purchasing and selling more environmentally beneficial products. We can also envision community leaders who are skillful at balancing development and transportation plans with the public needs for open spaces, trees, wildlife, clean water, exercise and fresh air. Many Americans share an abiding belief that we need environmental education. One can hardly go to a public forum on environmental issues without hearing a passionate call for increased public environmental literacy. NEETF/Roper research reveals that this need is so keenly felt that 95% of American adults (96% of parents) think environmental education should be taught in the schools and 90% believe that people in the workplace and in other places in adult society should receive environmental education too. The persistence and strength of America’s belief in environmental education seems to come from the ease by which visions of a cleaner, greener and more balanced future occur to so many. But, then comes that nagging question. Can environmental education ever really accomplish such a far-reaching vision? Does it actually work? Is there reliable evidence that environmental education can produce measurable results? The simple answer is yes. The chapters in this report elaborate on how and in what context. Basically, though, competent and well-applied environmental education can help America achieve an improved environment, better-planned communities, a more vibrant economy and even optimal human health. These are environmental education’s “bottom lines,” and they are achievable. But there are many nuances and provisos to this statement. They are also addressed in this report. We can sum up what environmental education needs most by pointing out a simple truth: What passes for environmental education in American is usually environmental information. One might compare it to the difference between a full-course meal and a quick snack. True education nourishes a deeper understanding and an all-important ability to apply knowledge while information simply makes one aware of a topic and stops there. Ironically, it seems that many of those who have a powerful vision of widespread environmental literacy are unable to relate to this difference, and therein sits environmental education’s principal stumbling block. Those who are often the most anxious for a change in public environmental understanding are prolific information providers.



Ironically, they often lack skill as educators. They publish checklists and guidebooks, give public addresses, issue press releases, produce films and obtain media coverage, issue attractive posters and more. But these attempts at education lack expert pedagogy and fall short of what creates actual environmental literacy. This inexpert “dabbling” in environmental education is not all bad. It produces widespread environmental awareness but it has nowhere near the desired result of fostering stewardship. If we converted the resources we now spend on pushing environmental information into a much deeper commitment to education, we could break a cycle and realize the larger vision. This report is also about how to understand and break that cycle. This report starts by exploring the status of American environmental knowledge and ends with what a commitment to real environmental literacy would involve. It is based in research from many disciplines and looks at environmental education as a lifelong “pre-K to gray” – undertaking. The foundation for this report rests on primary research conducted over a ten-year period through our partnership with Roper, a major international survey research firm and part of NOP World. This research also examines some rudiments of attitudes and behaviors and important relationships among them.

Chapter 1 summarizes what we know today about the state of environmental knowledge in America and gives us an idea of the current baseline.

Chapter 2 examines the powerful influence that the media exerts on environmental knowledge and education and challenges the professional environmental education community to come more to grips with how greater depth and more understanding of causal relationships can be incorporated into the public’s understanding of the environment via the media. Chapter 3 reveals what we can piece together about how environmental information and education is actually delivered to the public – young and old.

Chapter 4 covers important research on the nature and reasons for a remarkably high level of public support of environmental education. Chapter 5 looks at what we know about the character and state of true environmental literacy respecting youth in America – what is its definition and what actually brings it about. This chapter also looks at the vital question of what impact environmental education has or can have on encouraging long-term environmental stewardship. Chapter 6 assesses how both environmental knowledge and environmental literacy affect adults and what the research reveals about changes in stewardship behavior within the general adult public and in smaller but important leadership segments including Roper’s True Blue Greens, Environmental Information Seekers and the community Influentials.

Chapter 7 provides a summation of research on how environmental education programming helps students with improved performance in other academic subjects and overall learning skill. It recognizes that, for environmental education to compete with “core” school subjects and achieve a similar standing, it must offer measurable academic benefits as well.



Chapter 8 describes the long-term economic value of environmental education and literacy and suggests how it can support America’s shift toward sustainability. Chapter 9 contains recommendations for a plan of action that, when implemented, would dramatically improve the state of environmental literacy in America and beyond.

By linking our years of NEETF/Roper research to other studies that assess the efficacy of environmental education, we hope we can contribute significantly to a broader understanding of the field. This task is not easy and some may have difficulty with our efforts to connect public or commercial survey research with more controlled academic studies of environmental literacy as measured through key variables. We have tried to point out the boundaries and limits of their interactions. Ultimately, we want to help environmental education research and view this effort as pointing out significant research gaps that, if addressed, would help take environmental education to the next level and fulfill its ultimate promise. If environmental education should have an immediate target, it may be hinted at by recent Roper research that looks at moving toward an environmentally literate public through what Roper labels as “Influential Americans.” They are defined as the 10% of Americans who are most active as leaders in their communities. They are also America’s “thought leaders” and are dependable bellwethers for shifts in attitudes and behaviors. They evidence a higher than average interest in the environment and are often active in environmental affairs within the community. Broadening the amount of real environmental education that is available to them would be an important step. By educating the Influential Americans, we can leverage wider public environmental education.



Summary:

Understanding Environmental Literacy in America

Aware? Yes: But Hardly In-the-Know This study finds that overall awareness of simple environmental topics is reasonably high nationwide. It also finds a very strong nationwide belief in the value of environmental education. This offers an encouraging point of departure for our wider examination of an otherwise somewhat disappointing state of American environmental knowledge and literacy. While the weight of the research shows that the simplest forms of environmental knowledge are widespread, real comprehension of more complex environmental subjects is very limited within the public. The average adult American, regardless of age, income or level of education, mostly fails to grasp essential aspects of environmental science, important cause/effect relationships, or even basic but multi-step concepts such as runoff pollution, power generation and fuel use, water flow patterns or ecosystems dynamics. For example:

Just 32% of Americans have basic awareness of environmental topics All but 20% are heavily influenced by incorrect or outdated environmental myths Just 12% can pass a basic quiz on awareness of energy topics

The reader should note there is little difference in knowledge levels between the average American and those who sit on governing bodies, town councils and in corporate board rooms. There is good evidence, however, that the public can indeed learn about the environment and complex environmental and ecological relationships. But most of the evidence we have today indicates we are nowhere close to succeeding due to shallow, disorganized and inadequate education on the environment. This also indicates that members of the public will not be prepared to assume what will surely be increased environmental responsibility in the coming years. It seems our many years of reliance on a cadre of trained environmental experts within companies and government agencies that are equipped to handle our worst environmental problems for us are at an end. From now on, many of the leading environmental problems we will face, ranging from water quality to ecosystem management, will require as much focus on smaller individual actions, small business practices and community-based decision-making as on regulating and monitoring our largest public and private institutions.

Media Magic, Myths and Misapprehensions More children (83%) get environmental information from the media than from any other source. For most adults, the media is the only source of environmental information. Environmental educators have two big problems as they work on creating more widespread environmental literacy in America. Unfortunately most think they have just one. The first, and most obvious, is how to bring enough sound environmental education programming into the general education realm to



make a real difference. The second, and less understood, is how to come to grips with the powerful hold the media has on public environmental awareness and its sometimes negative effects on environmental literacy. The issue with the media is one of depth more than of accuracy. The popular news and entertainment media are particularly well suited to provide impressive but largely superficial information on environmental subjects. In current practice, the media is poorly positioned to provide in-depth education. This means they provide a steady flow of awareness-building information that sometimes confuses the public and seldom ever truly educates. Sometimes the misapprehensions it fosters can grow into persistent and incorrect myths. Educators need more understanding of how to align media coverage with principles of education and to reshape parts of the media so it does not actually disrupt what can lead to actual environmental literacy.

Environment’s Chances in Education’s Mainstream As the environmental education field has strived for increased educational acceptance and mainstream positioning, it has become replete with


person’s thoughtfulness, consideration and character in kids in the form of respect for the people and places around them. Further, environmental education is seen by 86% of adults as encouraging children to get involved in community service volunteer work. They may not want their kids to be political “activists” but, for the community’s sake, they want them to be “active.” And, some 84% of adults feel that environmental education enhances science learning. This is a subject discussed in Chapter 6. Similarly designed statewide studies in Minnesota (90%) and Pennsylvania (95%) showed similar levels of general support for environmental education for school children. Moreover Roper’s annual Green Gauge survey has twice corroborated these findings about the perceived value of environmental education. In 2000 it noted that 75% of adults say learning about the environment in school should be as important as math or English and in 2001 that 77% agreed with just 20% disagreeing. REVIEWER’S NOTE: GRAPHICS WILL BE CORRECTED AND FINALIZED Figure : Expected Effects of Environmental Education

No effect

at all Only a

little A Moderate

Amount A Great Deal

31

35

35

37

39

40

57

50

50

47

31

2919

21

12

12

9

8

5

7

2

2

3

1Preparing children to better understand environmental

issues when they are adults

Teaching children to respect the people and places around

them

Encouraging children to get involved in community service

projects

Helping children perform better in science

Helping children find jobs later in life as the environment will

play a larger role in future employment opportunities

Helping children perform better in social studies

Question wording: There are many ways that environmental education in schools can affect children. Do you think environmental education has a great deal of effect, a moderate amount of effect, only a little effect, or no effect at all on.



Support By Gender

As with many environmental subjects, gender is a key consideration in assessing attitudes regarding the effects of environmental education. For four of the six effects mentioned in the NEETF/Roper survey questions, women were significantly more likely than men to state that environmental education in schools has a great deal of effect on young people. This is especially true for two of the effects: encouraging children to get involved in community service projects (57% of women responded “a great deal of effect” versus 41% of men) and teaching children to respect the people and places around them (56% of women vs. 44% of men). In other words, women appear to be more optimistic than men about the possible community and character-building benefits of environmental education. By extension, women are probably more likely to give environmental education a chance to prove its worth (remembering that the vast majority of both genders say that environmental education should be taught in schools). It is worth reminding the reader that the NEETF/Roper studies show that women consistently evidence greater support and concern for the environment than men. While we can only speculate on what deeper motivations, underlie parental support of environmental education, the NEETF/Roper data may at least provide some indication that EE helps children learn science, function better socially and may even impart some community leadership skills.

Parenting and EE

There may even be some parenting philosophy and social psychology connected to how people perceive the effects of environmental education. Researcher, Diana Baumrind has defined several child-rearing models, (published in 1983) which describe parents in their relationships with children. Her “authoritarian” model is about parents who concentrate on controlling behavior, preserving order and minimizing give-and-take between child and adult. Baumrind feels this does not encourage independence or spontaneity in children. By contrast in her “authoritative” and “harmonious” models she sees a pathway to optimal competence in developing children. Her research on these models indicates that parents expect mature behavior from children. They expect them to follow rules but still to be independent and individualistic, and to recognize the rights of others. They also see value in open give and take between child and adult. These attributes are all reinforced in sound EE programs. Baumrind’s harmonious model has the added attraction for parents of supporting a worldview that places people in harmony with nature as compared to the more classic 19th century philosophy of human domination of nature. Such a “domination” theory is held by many of the parents who subscribe to the authoritarian model of child rearing. What once was seen as the natural order, however, has undergone some alterations in the 20th century and become a more widely accepted environmentally friendly paradigm. And while research discussed in chapter 5 shows this may not translate to actual changed behavior, it does seem to support parental will for children to be educated on the environment. Even under Baumrind’s authoritarian model, parents may feel that the future has so many unknowns that children deserve basic environmental education to prepare for unanticipated environmental dangers that are too remote to be forecast.



Whether they are parents, or not, most Americans do not want environmental education to end with graduation. They are believers in some level of education and training for people of all ages. There is, for example, strong support for governmental and corporate involvement in environmental education for adults. In a question in the 2000 NEETF/Roper Survey, Americans were asked whether the government should be involved in educating adults about environmental issues and problems. The vast majority of Americans (86%) agreed that government agencies should support such educational programs. In addition, the public endorses the concept of turning to private companies to help solve environmental problems. Over 80% agree, “private companies should train their employees to solve environmental problems.” Americans appear to want environmental education on the national agenda, and want government agencies and corporate America to be involved in educating adults about the environment



Chapter 5

Environmental Education and Stewardship in Our Youth

Organized and widespread environmental education originated with a nearly unique (for the formal education arena) focus on the future and applied stewardship. This leads to what those, who have fairly conservative views of education, worry is really teaching “activism” to our students. It is the same thing, by contrast, that most professional environmental educators see as the whole point of environmental education -- teaching applied skills and long-term environmental stewardship. Much of the discussion about what is appropriate to teach application-wise seems to turn on whether the observer personally agrees on the action being taught. There is widespread normative agreement, for example, that it is acceptable to teach a student about nature through tree planting or imparting common sense personal activities such as conserving energy and water. There is much less agreement when instruction extends to the civic or political (small “p”) process especially for younger children. Professional environmental educators have always followed rules of age-appropriateness and do not condone such activities as second graders writing letters to Congress by rote. Still, there is a feeling by many, including most adults that issue awareness; skill and application are a necessary part of the overall EE picture. Even in its best light, most evaluators see American Education as too passive and non-participatory. Most school students are largely confined to the classroom to learn through lectures. Educators who see value in EE are drawn to how it helps students become more active in their own education and can be tailored to be student-directed. So the original idea seems to hold up from the educational as well as the environmental viewpoint. Three decades ago, the accepted thinking was that if we could educate a generation young people to better understand and take care of the environment, America would have an improved chance of balancing the environment with economic realities. Environmental education would provide some fundamentals on how the younger generation could avoid or at least mitigate the environmental mistakes of their elders. The shortcoming to this thinking was there was too little comprehension what a great educational challenge infusing such stewardship thinking really implied.

Early Efforts: A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep

It seems that most of the leaders interested in the environmental education of the next generation had too simple and limited an educational view. Even sophisticated environmental and natural resource leaders thought that infusing a modicum of environmental information and awareness would result in significant changes in knowledge, attitude and individual behavior – more recycling,



less wasted energy, more careful product purchasing, greater care for wild animals, more local support for open spaces, water bodies and more. Through the 1970s and into the 1980s there was a proliferation of well-intentioned environmental education programs and materials. Such an abundance of EE activity continues today but with a stronger involvement from bona-fide and professionally developed EE programs. Still, schools and teachers experiment with the subject and public agencies see it as a way to support their missions. Nature centers, zoos, aquariums and even classical natural history museums have started their own versions of environmental education programming. Environmental science and related issues are a popular subject of children’s books and science text books now consistently add environmental content to their chapters. But a few years after EE began operating at a higher level, a round of professional assessment, research and evaluation began to reveal a disappointing truth. These many “educational” efforts were really little more than informational excursions and were not having much effect at all on creating true environmental literacy, application skills or a sense of stewardship in young people. See Appendices 3 and 4. Maria Lane’s Planning Forum Article (1996) suggests there is a positive relationship between environmental awareness and knowledge and attitudes and behaviors but, though it is statistically significant, it is not strong. NEETF/Roper data examine such relationships and consistently find that awareness has an effect on stewardship but does not, in itself, go far enough to bring about lasting change. Dr. Thomas Marcinkowski of Florida Tech points out the conceptual problem of expecting awareness and knowledge to produce behavior change. He sees a weakness in the otherwise logical construct that knowledge affects attitude and attitude affects behavior. In his research and that of his colleagues, these relationship are much more complex, involve more factors and dictate much more carefully designed educational approaches.

Response: A Formula for Greater Depth and True “Literacy”

As early as 1978, at a conference in Tblisi, observant environmental educators assembled to work up a more fitting and useful definition of environmental literacy that would begin to frame a correct definition of environmental education that would also suggest a focus on deeper learning, skill development and stewardship. A decade later a review of research in 1987 by Tomera et al. and in 1990 by Hungerford and Volk reached some important conclusions about the difference between environmental knowledge and deeper environmental literacy:

1. Developing awareness and ecological knowledge is not enough to cause long-lasting behavior changes,

2. Ownership – developing a personal connection with and knowledge of issues is

critical to responsible environmental behavior,

3. Instruction that focuses on ownership and empowerment changes behavior.



As noted, in 1990, Hungerford and Volk added to their thinking about the creation of true environmental literacy in the following way: “ It appears that [environmental education] can maximize opportunities to change learner behavior in the environmental dimension if educational agencies will:”

1. teach environmentally significant ecological concepts and the environmental inter-relationships that exist within these concepts;

2. provide carefully designed and in-depth opportunities for learners to achieve some level of

environmental sensitivity that will promote a desire to behave in appropriate ways,

3. provide a curriculum that will result in an in depth knowledge of issues

4. provide a curriculum that will teach learners the skills of issue analysis and investigation as well as provide the time needed for the application of these skills,

5. provide curriculum that teach learners the citizenship skills needed for issue remediation as

well as the time needed for the application of these skills, and

6. provide an instructional setting that increases the learner’s expectancy of reinforcement for acting in a responsible way; ie., attempt to develop an internal locus of control in learners.

E-Literacy: Nailing Down What Works

These principles have successfully held up under considerable scrutiny and testing over the years. As noted, they are reflected in the guidelines for excellence by the North American Associations for Environmental Education and are borne out in numerous examples of subsequent research. They are a useful filter in understanding and, importantly, predicting whether and environmental education effort can lead to true environmental literacy and to stewardship behaviors. In a seminal 1998 survey study of how well we are doing in creating true environmental literacy and stewardship, Trudi Volk of Southern Illinois University and Bill McBeth of the University of Wisconsin, examined 32 different studies of environmental literacy. Twenty of them assessed a single component of environmental literacy, six measured a combination of two literacy components, five measured three variables and one assessed four variables. The variables assessed as a percentage of the 32 studies were: affective attributes (75%), ecological knowledge (9%), socio-political knowledge (6%), knowledge of environmental issues (47%), cognitive skills (none), additional determinants (3%) and responsible behaviors (19%). Eighteen of the studies included adults and six included college or university students. High school students were in ten of the studies and elementary or middle school students were in six studies. Seventeen states are reflected in the studies. The Volk - McBeth research survey summarized how different instructional and learning approaches affected the variables.



1. Traditional courses: Two investigations (Wilson and Tomera, 1980) examined what impact environmental cases studies being added to traditional high school biology courses had on attitudinal variables. While there were slight shifts in a positive direction, the differences in pre and post measurement were not significant. Another study, (Adams Thomas Newgard and Cooper, 1987) found significant attitudinal changes related to four animals used to illustrate examples in a high school biology course. A third study found that adding environment-based activities to a traditional social studies course made a significant difference.

2. Community investigations: issue investigation approaches – teaching students to

shape a hypothesis and then thoroughly explore an issue -- assessed in the Volk-McBeth study are particularly noteworthy because they evidence such a high percentage of significant impact on the variables. Of the 18 variables examined studied under this instructional approach, 15 made a significant difference and one evidenced mixed or questionable results.

3. Instructional units: defined educational units on subjects such as energy, water

conservation and recycling evidenced significant differences in five variables examined and mix results in two with none showing no significant difference.

4. Supplemental magazines and instruction in the classroom: This approach was found

to be the least effective, having had a positive effect in two cases but no significant effect or mixed results in six others.

5. Field trips and out-of-class activities: these activities evidenced a significant effect in

six of nine instances.

6. Residential camps: consistent with many immersion experiences, the studies found significant differences in eight of nine variables.

7. College level environmental courses: these evidenced clear and significant positive

effects in eight of nine instances.

8. Workshops for teachers and adults: evidenced positive impacts in five instances, mixed results in three and no difference in two.

9. Television documentaries: found that, in two instances, knowledge was improved but

attitude was not clearly affected. What the survey found overall is there is too little understanding of the status of comprehensive environmental literacy and the studies that were done focused on attitudes and knowledge. Research into responsible behavior indicates a more complex interaction among attitudes, knowledge, cognitive skills and psychological characteristics. Such sophisticated research will tell us more about the impact of environmental education on stewardship.



The Power of Investigation

Volk, Hungerford, Ramsey and Peyton place particular emphasis on the importance of investigation and problem solving as a way to get at these more complex inter-relationships and to promote true environmental literacy. To that end, they have developed a thorough and highly crafted curriculum entitled “Investigating and Evaluating Environmental Issues and Actions” (IEEIA). This curriculum embodies a critical thinking approach to environmental issues of all scales, from site-based to global. The model permits the learner to become an expert information gatherer and data processor who can evaluate and resolve environmental issues while also taking his or her own belief systems into consideration. Students are given an opportunity to apply their skills. In many ways, the IEEIA program is the archetype of what the creation of environmental literacy should be all about. In 2002, the IEEIA Program was put to the test in a detailed assessment and evaluation in Molokai, Hawaii. Five researchers studied the effect of the program on 38 fifth and sixth grade IEEIA students and compared them to 28 non-IEEIA students. Findings include:

1. In a t-test of critical thinking, the IEEIA student scored 14.18 as compared to 10.86 for the non-IEEIA students.

2. Other IEEIA vs, Non-IEEIA comparisons were: Knowledge of issues (2.84 vs.

1.24), ecological foundations (10.55 vs.7.86) issue analysis (9.24 vs. 4.32).

3. In a test of actual environmental knowledge, 38% of the IEEIA students achieved a score of 80% or higher and 76% scored 60% or higher. Just 25% of non-IEEIA students scored 60% or higher.

4. Some 75% of the IEEIA student reported they had taken an environmental action as

compared to 43% of non-IEEIA students. Researchers also found that the IEEIA program had a significant positive effect on reading and writing skills. Oral communications, use of technology, retention and other factors that will be discussed more in Chapter 6. From the environmental literacy and stewardship standpoint, however, the Molokai study also suggests the importance of social context. Such a context produces sophisticated knowledge and modeling in an authentic and constructivist context. There is significant research that grounding environmental education within a community will help enhance the educational experience and ground the learner in stewardship. Without such grounding, the education will remain abstract, beyond the experience of the learner and inconsistent with cultural norms. Ultimately it will be irrelevant. Berger and Neuhaus (1977), Siemer (1997). Importantly students in the IEEIA program improved their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, they improved their knowledge of ecology, they proved to be more familiar with important environmental issues and they had an enhanced ability to analyze issues including the key players, salient positions, underlying beliefs and values. Most important of all, perhaps, the students in the



program were better able to identify actions appropriate for issue resolution. This specific knowledge is missing from many EE programs and the IEEIA program is designed to guide the student toward his or her own learning of these skills. The IEEIA program developers are not naïve about how challenging their formula can be to implement in the conventional classroom. As convinced, as they are that they have evolved a powerful and successful tool for bringing about environmental literacy they also understanding the need for skilled educators to effectively deliver the program. Marcinkowski (2004) points out that, as the field has professionalized and become more sophisticated, the need for specific professional preparation has increased. As early as 1991, Fortner called for teacher training for the highest level use of curriculum and materials. So the question remains: does environmental education improve the environment? Some environmental advocates express outright frustration over what they perceive to be nebulousness about EE’s true and measurable impact. The IEEIA program and other sound environmental education approaches would suggest that these skeptics need to broaden their view and have more patience with a well-crafted process and have some faith that many positive outcomes are probable. Ironically, these same people, whom one might expect to be most supportive of environmental education, can be its harshest critics. For them, the bottom line is: does EE make the water cleaner, the air cleaner, save wildlife, reduce toxins, or beautify the nation. In reality Americans are varied in their responses to most environmental challenges many will take action and many will not. Still, the body of research tends to show that an individual with a sound base of environmental literacy and suitable skills development is anywhere from 5% to 90% more likely to engage in a set of pro-environment behavior. The bottom line: a base of environmental education developed through scientifically sound instruction and with an emphasis on skill-building has the effect of causing a significant number of individuals to change in the way they feel and behave toward environmental resources. Well-presented environmental education works to ramp up pro-environment behavior particularly if that instruction has incorporated significant hands-on experiences – often outdoors. To understand EE’s true bottom line, there are three important concepts its critics need to grasp.

First, environmental education will only work to improve environmental stewardship if it is done right such as in the IEEIA example provided above. It is worth stating again that the evidence assembled in this report indicates that most of what passes for environmental education is not anything of the sort, but that can be fixed with a greater commitment and further research.

Second, if it is done right, the average person is more likely to take regular positive actions

depending on the task’s complexity, level of ease or difficulty, whether they feel they are acting alone, and if there is a link to something else that person values. NEETF estimates that this is (modestly speaking) worth some $75 billion a year in measurable environmental benefits.



Third, the people who are most active in our society and get out there to run school boards, planning boards, volunteer fire departments, civic associations, animal welfare leagues and other such groups are also much more responsive to environmental education in all of its forms than the general public. The more these people know – all 30 million of them – the cleaner, healthier and more beautiful America gets and stays.

If environmental education has shortcomings it is there is too little of it and its delivery needs to improve and become better organized. What follows is an examination of what current research tells us about the tremendous potential of environmental education to change the way people react to the resource demands of the planet. We note it may be too much to expect environmental education to bring all of the public into the realm of model decision-making and behavior. The research presented in this report, however, shows that e-literate people will take more simple actions such as saving water and electricity. And, for a core of leaders, EE will also lead to more involved actions such as volunteering, contributing to a conservation organization and other activities that involve commitment. The following pages explore how much.

The Importance of Learning Outside the Box In this instance the “box” is the American classroom and “outside” means outdoors, in nature or in the community. There are a large number of case-specific studies, examining attitude shifts brought on by environmental education and related outdoor or outside the classroom activities. Some of these focus on an immersion experience in the wild. Examples of these are documented by Dr. Steven Kellert of Yale University in a seminal 1998 survey study, Dr. Kellert has identified several studies that show how tying the learning experience to the outdoors influences people (mostly youth in the studies) to feel positively about environmental conservation. He uses examples from Outward Bound, the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) and similar immersion type programs as evidence that exposure to learning in the outdoors affects people profoundly and can even be life-changing. The Kellert study finds that a large majority of outdoor program participants experienced changed attitudes toward the environment. Common findings were that from 70% to 80% of program participants developed more favorable feelings toward the environment. Importantly, as time passed these feelings seemed to grow stronger. Participants in wilderness-oriented programs routinely report these experiences as among the “best in their lives.” When that question is revisited several years later, the memory has grown fonder and a higher percentage of participants identify these programs as among their best lifetime experiences. The Kellert findings also indicate that the outdoor education experiences positively affected behavior. Kellert (1987) has stated that, “a personally meaningful environmental ethic requires a fundamental affection for and identification with nature and related capacity to perceive oneself as an integral and obligate member of the ecological community.” Some have argued that the students in these programs are naturally predisposed to pro-environment attitudes and behaviors. To an extent, this is true but a 1995 study by Porter et al. examined responses from 288 students at the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS), confirmed that while incoming students tends to be relatively ecologically-minded to begin with, they still experience positive changes with respect to the environment. For NOLS the goal is to convey what



it calls “minimum impact ideology” in its core curriculum. Consistent with definitions of true environmental education, the survey found that this conveyance works best if it is the specific subject of a debriefing after a NOLS outing. This, again, points out how important it is to focus some of the education of what can be done and what skills are needed to do them. Another less wilderness-oriented example of the impact of outdoor experiences on values is a study by Dresner and Gill (1994) that found pre teen campers’ awareness and enthusiasm for environmental conservation went up significantly after a summer nature camp. Camp experiences seem to be a common point of reference for adults in value formulation and memorable experiences. They likewise often teach skills about environmental conservation. A 1996 ERIC Digest Report by Curt Schatz points to the importance of the outdoor experience as a tool of learning by comparing outdoor environmental education to guided outdoor recreation. It finds that, to the extent the two approaches can be compared, the results are roughly the same with respect to environmental awareness. There is a significant increase in environmental awareness for both. This likely means that weaving environmental education into the outdoor recreation experience will have amplified results with respect to knowledge. There are also some interesting experiments on the effect of visual presentations on attitudes. A study of sixth graders in Ontario (Eagels and Demare 1999) found a correlation in children who watch nature films and read about nature with stronger environmental attitudes. Similarly, Zimmerman (1996) cites several studies that show a relationship between knowledge, attitude and behavior. He concludes that knowledge attitude must be impacted to alter behavior and makes an interesting case for the use of television as a powerful way to affect both attitude and knowledge. Other evidence, however, cautions us to worry that over exposure to television and computers might also lead to isolation and passivity.

The Promise of Place-Based Education

In a 2004, book on Placed Based Education, David Sobel of Antioch New England Graduate School both reinforces and challenges some widespread conventional thinking on environmental education by calling for a rethinking of some of the underpinnings of what many people consider “environmental” education. He is concerned that the longstanding emphasis of environmental education on the natural environment is too limited. In his plan for achieving environmental literacy and other forms of literacy through place-based education, he believes that the built environment, history, cultural and similar human concerns are crucial too. He sees the interactions among various human and natural environments as shaping each other and feels it is important to educate people of all ages on these interactions. Importantly, Sobel feels that a focus on placed-based learning comes with more emphasis on the here and now rather than the distant future. He also sees a valuable modern trend in environmental education which he calls “speciation.” This is a trend where many new and more specialized approaches to educating on the environment are being tried and refined. These speciation approaches move beyond set curriculum and syllabi and certainly challenge what he thinks of as current education policy’s “mandated educational monoculture.” They draw from real dimensions and diversity in the learner’s life. He thus feels America has a wonderful potential to form and



elaborate upon a strong new pedagogy of place that offers a framework based on the connection of school to the larger community. Sobel states that placed-based learning is a dynamic and relevant model for learning that places learning within rather than alongside of the world. It is another outstanding example of the richness with which learning about the environment can support a complete and well-rounded education in our young people. There is considerable evidence that placed-based education enhances academic achievement and that will be discussed further in Chapter 6. There is a need for more research on the impact of place-based education on environmental stewardship but Sobel points out some interesting studies that support its influence on stewardship. These include a 1989 study by Marguerite Harvey of 850 schools in England that found students who were exposed to undeveloped, vegetated school grounds showed higher scores for the enjoyment of pastoral or natural environments. It also lessened a student’s sense of human domination of nature. This impact on affective qualities in students indicates a noteworthy potential to reinforce stewardship. Sobel also identifies a 2000 Texas study that shows similar student reactions to a schoolyard gardening program.

The Community Service Connection

One of the most encouraging developments for environmental education in the past decade is its popularity as a form of community service learning and support for environmental service right along with it. The idea of encouraging young people to engage in local community service projects has gained tremendous support in schools across America. The recent sense of public urgency behind community service programs came from a growing concern that our computer-based and television-based modern society is fostering passivity, selfishness and even isolation among our youth. We want our children to care about people, work in teams, and be willing to help out in their homes and communities. Middle schools, in particular, are handing pre teens and young teens the responsibility for serving a specified number of community service volunteer hours. The U.S. Department of Education reports that most major school districts now have some form of community service requirement. This means that most of our 50 million school children will now have a set number of community service hours during their K-12 education. Students document their participation in programs that help local community organizations: hospitals, libraries, park agencies, animal shelters, and more. In this way they fulfill their service requirements as an academic condition. The Washington DC area-based youth organization Earth Force specializes in building this community service requirement into actual educational curricula on the environment. In the course of developing its service learning curricula, Earth Force finds the environment is the leading subject for middle school service projects. It estimates that half of all students who participate in community service hours will devote some of those hours to environment-based projects such as scientific water quality sampling, stream restoration, a park clean up, tree planting, invasive species removal, local recycling, water conservation and the like. A seminal 1995 Prudential study verifies this finding that several years ago the environment was one of the three most popular subjects for community service.



At the Huntingdon Middle School in Pennsylvania, the NEETF Promising Programs report finds that environment-based service learning has a profound effect on student motivation and willing ness to pitch-in within their community. Through its Science Teams in Rural Environments and Aquatic Management Studies (STREAMS) the School has evolved a 60-hour core program for all sixth graders. The curriculum integrates environmental topics into hands-on learning projects. Students are taught to undertake complex environmental projects. After completion of the course, many students choose to participate in rigorous after-school environmental education programs. In a county where fewer than 10% of all adults have post secondary degrees, the success of Huntingdon’s programs seems to be reversing some deeply entrenched local attitudes about education. The students in at Huntingdon have become local experts in community stewardship having received a total of $250,000 in grants to accomplish projects such as assessing watersheds, repairing broken sewage lines, constructing wetlands, and restoring stream banks. When asked why they participate in a not-for-credit- after school program, they identify a sense of empowerment and self-satisfaction. Students have formed many community partnerships with public interest organizations, parents have become involved and academic success has improved dramatically. The Four Corners School of Outdoor Education in Monticello Utah established a Canyon County Youth Corps Service Learning program for youth between the ages of 16 and 23. Some 25,000 young people have gone through the program. Groups undertake public land restoration projects while learning life skills and environmental stewardship. The program has been highly successful in combining employment, academic improvements and community service in an environmental package. Environment-based community service’s popularity may be due to its combination of short-term tangible projects, physical outdoor work and variety or opportunities.

Benefits Brief: EE’s Connections to Community Service

Volunteerism: research shows that environmentally tuned in Americans are more likely to volunteer for an environmental purpose such as helping out at a local park system or community project. Youth service: the environment is the number one subject of choice for student community service projects and programs.

One significant concern of education leaders in America is widely described as a break down in “character education.” In Character Education in America’s Schools (Akins et al, 1999) the authors call upon schools to become more deliberate in character education by setting up instructional units that focus on activities involving cooperation and respect. That is because educators and parents worry that our schools are not challenging students enough to become community-minded or to develop more respect and responsibility toward the people and places around them. Some leaders have offered solutions such as school prayer while more popular approaches have settled on compulsory community service requirements.



From an educational perspective, character education in schools, according to Akins et al., grows out of a continuing series of useful interactions and not through passive, insular activities such as listening to a lecture. Environment-based education can help teachers become character educators with basic messages such as avoiding waste and showing respect for others. Importantly, the environment when employed in this way is politically neutral and reinforces science and academic achievement. Youth who receive instruction in both environmental issues and action strategies assume personal responsibility for realizing their values. Such a sense of responsibility increases confidence and self esteem. It also helps them feel part of “something larger than them” (Iozzi, Laveult, Marcinkowski, 1990). In the Dowdell Middle School in Tampa, Florida, for example, surveys revealed that students engaged in the School’s comprehensive environment-based service learning program developed a heightened sense that “obeying the rules” is important. Dowdell is a magnet school with a diverse population of near equal numbers of African American, Hispanic and Caucasian students. Some 65% of the students qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. In the 2002 NEETF report on Promising Programs, the State Education and Environment Roundtable reported that the Helen M. King Middle School in Maine struggled with rampant discipline problems, poor attendance, negative attitudes, non-existent parental participation, and low academic performance. Nearly 10% of the student body transferred to other area schools in a three-year period. At the same time, the Limited English Proficient (LEP) and bilingual population of the school rose to 22%. In a school where 70% of the students already qualified for federally subsidized lunches, teachers found their students increasingly struggling with academics. Instead of despairing, the School’s principal and a team of teachers changed the rules in 1993 and embarked on a Comprehensive School Reform Program based on environmental learning. It is called Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB). Despite steady increases in King School’s low-income and LEP populations the standardized test results have shown marked improvement in all disciplines including writing. Importantly, the first ELOB team at King achieved instant results in student school behavior. They immediately saw 50% fewer discipline problems and improved attendance and student engagement. Parental involvement rose from 1% to 27% and King’s performance on the Maine Educational Assessment (MEA) has improved in all areas – reading, math, science, health, social studies and arts. In another example from the Promising Programs report, the American Honda Education Corporation founded the Eagle Rock School in Colorado in 1993 as a haven for high school students who struggle in traditional academic settings. Some of these students suffer from problem relationships at home. Most have dropped out of school, been expelled or have given up, Some have made poor decisions regarding drugs, alcohol and gangs and many exhibit low self esteem. The School focuses on service learning programs based on environmental study and improvements and finds that the program creates a lasting commitment among students to improving the quality of life for others and contributing to their communities. Importantly, the School found that the students gain a sense of purpose and self-esteem by doing the meaningful work involved in the program. Another related response to the need for improved character education has been a profusion of after school programming. Statistics show that young people are at much higher risk for



mischievous behavior in the hours immediately following the end of the regular school day. Some 20% of American school children are “latch key kids” (children home by themselves until a parent gets off work) whose parents would welcome inexpensive and educational alternatives to their sitting at home. Moreover, a broad base of research shows that children are more at risk for getting in trouble in the afternoon hours though exposure to sex, drugs, alcohol or violence. In Woodlake California, a rural community where 85% of students qualify for free or reduced-priced lunch, the Heritage Project provides 2,500 students with enriching and exciting after school activities and courses. Through a partnership between three local school districts and the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, an environmental education program has evolved to complement the Projects other academic and cultural offerings. The Project is supported through the National 21st Century Community Learning Center program of the U.S. Department of Education. This is a program that increased from $1 million in funding in 1997 to $1 billion in federal funds five years later. At the Heritage Project, students meet with a park ranger to learn about topics related to the Parks, such as cycles of forest fires and the adaptations of animals and heir habitats. Importantly the connection these students have with the Parks is more extensive and regular than the occasional field trip that many schools offer. Educators at the Heritage Project find that the many hands-on experiences they offer greater student motivation to learn and get involved. Nearly three-quarters of local students have become involved in the Heritage Project and since its inception test scores in both language and math have improved significantly. Behavioral problems in the classroom have decreased suggesting that student social skills improve through the program. Also, an increasing number or parents are becoming involved. The SEER study, Closing the Achievement Gap, (2000) examined how environment-based education seems to affect student behavior and character and made some important findings. Fully 70% of the educators involved noticed that the students in the environment-based programs evidenced improved behaviors. Importantly, 93% of involved educators observed improved civility toward others among the students. At the Hotchkiss school in Texas there was a 91% reduction disciplinary referrals among the students in the environment program and in Little Falls School in Minnesota the students in the environment program comprised just 28% of discipline problems though they represented 46% of student body. Environmental education is not in the same light as “tough love” or boot camp like programs through which some youth are held to the fire to shape up and learn proper behaviors. The evidence is, however, that it teaches many of the same lessons in a constructive way that supports communities, solid values and increased self-esteem. Along the way millions of young people are receiving valuable exposure to the outdoors, to environmental improvement projects and to varied and interesting ways to learn.



Chapter 6

Environmental Literacy and and Stewardship in Adults

Knowledge, Instructions, Action and Ease

The evidence that people will respond positively if they know what to do abounds. When paper supermarket bags were (for awhile) identified as beneficial for the environment (compared to plastic) their use increased manifold. When plastic six-pack rings were indicated as a cause of wildlife entrapment, millions began snipping the rings with knives and scissors before throwing them out. These were easy-to-do actions. People felt they could make a real difference and that others were participating too. Although the environmental efficacy of these particular actions did not withstand later re-examination, the public’s willingness to take some personal steps on behalf of environmental protection was established. Researchers have looked at the impact of cost and time constraints on the decision to take a pro-environment action. They conclude that people are much less inclined to take steps that will disrupt lives (Lane 1996). Interestingly, enough this simple observation also helps us to get to the heart of the discussion about whether people will take pro-environment steps on the basis of their own decisions or if they need prompting from laws, regulations and public policy. As discussed above, the link between knowledge and behavior is positive but not very strong. Social or community context is surely one of the key factors that can motivate people to take pro-environment actions. Recycling is a prime example of how a public policy of putting a box in people’s homes and asking them to use it can bring about wide-scale behavioral change. Those who question the value of environmental literacy will often use recycling laws as an example of how EE alone cannot work. But in most circumstances, policy alone will not work either. Specific environmental actions have the greatest potential for implementation. Researchers feel that the key to people taking personal responsibility has more to do with their feeling in control than other factors. For them, locus of control means access and convenience. The success of the curbside recycling laws is that they build upon these principles as compared to taking materials to local recycling centers where the issues of access and convenience are more attenuated. Most sound public policy theory is that institutions only change through some level of personal change. NEETF/Roper research helps us get a handle on the status of environmental behaviors today. Almost every human activity effects the environment in some way. Some of these activities result in pollution, while others help to conserve the natural world. The 2000 NEETF/Roper Report Card study investigated some of the activities people can engage in to benefit the environment and indicates how these actions relate to beliefs and knowledge about the environment. Although they



Placed-Based Models

A slightly broader than usual look at environmental education to include the social, economic and built environment can create a very dynamic learning environment for students that focuses on using a locale as a way to make schooling fit within a real community context. The emergence of place-based learning and the alignment of placed based learning goals and the capacity of environmental education curricula and practices to well into its mix is a significant opportunity for strengthening American Education using such programs as the Comprehensive School Reform initiative at the federal level.

Agency Professionals

Not all out-of-school resources are places or facilities. There are thousands of environmental professionals employed today with high degrees of environmental science and management expertise. These individuals are not usually educators but still are educational resources for out of school programs. Many agencies are examining how to deploy their staffs and experts in ways that match their scientific, technical and other disciplinary strengths with the ability to engage in reasonable education and pedagogy. Agencies that have large numbers of environmental expert staffs must devise ways to train such staffs at all levels of management to deliver quality educational programming.

3. Maximize Information Technology for EE delivery There is a transformation that is taking place in the larger field and practices of American education today that will challenge environmental educators in the coming decade. While many schools now suffer from a shortage of computers and related educational and communication technology, that condition will change in time. These prospective changes amount to much more than making sure schools and students are “wired.” We can foresee a time of lower-cost, more portable, wireless computer use when students and teachers are, for example, assigning, receiving, completing, and evaluating homework over the Web. Similarly, the educational field will have a more sophisticated and integrated relationship with software simulations, interactive lesson plans, on-line training, controlled research, testing and much more. The virtual world is well positioned to play a central role in the educational universe. But how ready will the environmental education field be? It is a field full of practitioners who pride themselves on activities in nature, resource conservation and many low-tech - back to earth pursuits.

A Comprehensive and Organized EE Presence on the Internet Increasingly, we are living through an information age paradox. Despite unprecedented access to information, there is now too much information on nearly every major topic and too little time to absorb it all. This is true of the highly inventive field of environmental education as well. With some improved organization, screening, and delivery the Foundation can help address the problem.



The NEETF/Roper studies and Roper Green Gauge studies show a trend toward the use of the Internet as a source of environmental information. Moreover, the Web is becoming a leading way teachers and students at most grade levels do research. The North Carolina Teachers Study found, for example that the Internet has reach top position as what the interviewed teachers see as the most effective way to find environmental education resources. In time a significant part of the discourse between teacher and student will be Web-based. Unfortunately, EE on the Web is not well organized nor as user friendly as it could be. Today’s K-12 educators are looking for easier, “push button” access to high quality programs, materials and training and EE must to stay on top of this curve.

Environmental Education Self Help Web Portals Through the creation of new Web portals or “gateways” we can capture and display key information on how educators can obtain the very best or most usable environmental education available today and can include such features.

Public Funding for NGO Web portals

Development of a Central federal agency resource and environmental education Web site

similar to the First-Gov Portal

Support for more teacher on-line refresher courses

On Line Training and Other Courses The EE field has significant needs for teacher training, education for target professional groups and outreach to community leaders. Important strides have been made in the past few years to make EE training more on-line. But the field needs to become much more serious about the deployment of quality training and Web-based education.

Simulations and Investigations The EE field has learned that effective environmental literacy comes from a combination of educational approaches that create a sense of ownership, skills, and hands-on experience. The education world is opening up to the possibility of using the virtual world for such educational experiences. This would include such elements as environmental games, three dimensional maps case-based learning and more.

More Effective Media Tools As noted earlier, America’s most powerful environmental information source is the media. We are not being critical of the quality or amount of media coverage of the environment in this report. We are suggesting that current formats for presenting environmental news are highly useful in making the public aware of the existence of an issue or problem. They provide, however, little educational



background on what causes the problems or its underlying science. News coverage, in particular, contains a steady stream of isolated facts and abbreviated messages that penetrate the public’s mind but are without context. The result is that myths or misperceptions can arise and persist. Strategies that can help:

Information Seekers: create a better understanding of who these people are and how they absorb information

News Graphics such as maps, schematics and diagrams: Environmental news media coverage, whether electronic or print and whether short item or lengthy feature, needs to make much more use of maps and diagrams. All forms of news and media coverage would improve with the consistent use of instructive graphics. People, as a rule, have poor geographic knowledge and do not grasp many cause-and-effect relationships regarding the environment – pollution, flooding, fires, sprawl and so on. Consistent use of maps and diagrams would help.

Media Meteorology: We need to better deploy the nation’s weathercasters in the coverage and explanation of environmental resource issues and their location. With adult public environmental knowledge at such a low level, we need more effective use of this particular branch of the media. Broadcast and news meteorologists can use their unique positions and skills to educate people on environmental conditions. Their combination of science expertise, common use of graphics and high level of public trust make them ideal science and environment ambassadors to the public. Weathercasters are particularly well-positioned to explain complex natural systems and to educate the public on important cause and effect relationships. Fully 80% of all adults including community leaders, watch the news primarily to see to weather. This creates opportunities to learn interesting and important things about their local environment. Our Recommendations:

NSF support for an assessment of the effectiveness of weather-casting and associated Web sites as a tool for science education.

Legislative support for the NOAA to increase the coordinated educational functions of

agencies responsible for weather and the environment.

Professional Training Program of basic EE for weathercasters via continuing education and training courses through the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and its division of over one thousand AMS broadcast seal-holders

Environmental Literacy goals for broadcasters developed in concert with EE leaders for

watersheds, air-sheds, related environmental science topics, and issues of regional concern



News and data service that regularly delivers important “factoids,” graphics and storylines to weathercasters

NOAA training of Meteorologists – enabling legislation for education and NOAA science --

funding for on-line courses

Funding for an increase number of formal data and graphics partnerships between the media and public resource and environmental agencies.



Appendix 1

NEETF/Roper 1997 – 2000 questions:

Test Your Environmental Knowledge!

1.There are many different kinds of animals and plants, % Response

and they live in many different types of environments. What is the word used to describe this idea? Is it…

a. Multiplicity......................... 6% b. Biodiversity.............................................................................................. 41 c. Socio-economics ...................................................................................... 7 d. Evolution? ................................................................................................. 9

Don’t know .......................................................................................................... 36

2. Carbon monoxide is a major contributor to air pollution in the U.S. Which of the following is the biggest source of carbon monoxide? Is it…

a. Factories and businesses ....................................................................... 25 b. People breathing....................................................................................... 3 c. Motor vehicles, or.................................................................................... 65 d. Trees? ....................................................................................................... 3

Don’t know ............................................................................................................ 4 3. How is most of the electricity in the U.S. generated? Is it… a. By burning oil, coal, and wood………………………………………………33 b. With nuclear power ................................................................................. 12 c. Through solar energy................................................................................ 2 d. At hydro electric power plants?............................................................... 39 Don’t know .......................................................................................................... 13 4. What is the most common cause of pollution of streams, rivers, and oceans? Is it… a. Dumping of garbage by cities ................................................................. 14 b. Surface water running off yards, city streets, paved lots, and farm fields ………………………………………………………………..28 c. Trash washed into the ocean from beaches, or........................................ 4 d. Waste dumped by factories? .................................................................. 45

Don’t know ............................................................................................................ 9



5. Which of the following is a renewable resource? Is it… a. Oil .......................................................................................................... 12 b. Iron ore...................................................................................................... 4 c. Trees, or.................................................................................................. 65 d. Coal........................................................................................................... 6 Don’t know .......................................................................................................... 24 6. Ozone forms a protective layer in the earth’s upper atmosphere. What does ozone protect us

from? Is it … a. Acid rain .................................................................................................... 4 b. Global warming ....................................................................................... 27 c. Sudden changes in temperature, or.......................................................... 6 d. Harmful, cancer-causing sunlight?.......................................................... 54

Don’t know ............................................................................................................ 9 7. Where does most of the garbage in the U.S. end up? Is it in… a. Oceans...................................................................................................... 5 b. Incinerators ............................................................................................... 4 c. Recycling centers, or ............................................................................... 4 d. Landfills? ................................................................................................. 85

Don’t know ............................................................................................................ 2 8. What is the name of the primary federal agency that works to protect the environment? Is it the… a. Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) .......................................... 72 b. Department of Health, Environment, and Safety (the DHES)................... 3 c. National Environmental Agency (the NEA), or ......................................... 4 d. Federal Pollution Control Agency (the FPCA)? ........................................ 6

Don’t know .......................................................................................................... 15 9. Which of the following household wastes is considered hazardous waste? Is it… a. Plastic packaging .................................................................................... 16 b. Glass ......................................................................................................... 3 c. Batteries, or............................................................................................. 67 d. Spoiled food? .......................................................................................... 10

Don’t know ............................................................................................................ 5 10. What is the most common reason that an animal species becomes extinct? Is it because… a. Pesticides are killing them ........................................................................ 8 b. Their habitats are being destroyed by humans....................................... 74 c. There is too much hunting, or ................................................................... 6 d. There are climate changes that affect them? ........................................... 5 Don’t know ............................................................................................................ 6 11. Scientists have not determined the best solution for disposing of nuclear waste. In the U.S., what

do we do with it now? Do we… a. Use it as nuclear fuel................................................................................. 7 b. Sell it to other countries ............................................................................ 3 c. Dump it in landfills, or.............................................................................. 12



d. Store and monitor the waste? ................................................................. 57 Don’t know .......................................................................................................... 21

12. What is the primary benefit of wetlands? Do they… a. Promote flooding....................................................................................... 7 b. Help clean the water before it enters lakes, streams,

rivers, or oceans...................................................................................... 53 c. Help keep the number of undesirable plants and animals

low, or........................................................................................................ 7 d. Provide good sites for landfills? ................................................................ 3

Don’t know .......................................................................................................... 30

Correct Answers: 1b, 2c, 3a, 4b, 5c, 6d, 7d, 8a, 9c, 10b, 11d, 12b.



Appendix 2:

Roper Methodology Description of the Sample Each of the NEETF/Roper studies is based on a nationwide cross-section of 1,500 adults, 18 years of age and older. Interviews were conducted by telephone each year. Results are projectable to the total adult population of the continental United States who would be willing to be interviewed in a telephone study of this kind.

The margin of error due to sampling is plus or minus two percentage points at the .95 confidence level, although it is larger for the results for smaller subgroups of the public. For example, the sampling error is plus or minus four percentage points for results among the 480 or so adults in the sample aged 18-34. Previous versions of this study (known as the Times Mirror Magazines National Environmental Forum from 1992 to 1995) had a plus or minus three percentage point margin of sampling error.

Sampling Method The basic sample was drawn at random from the adult population of the continental United States, excluding institutionalized segments of the public (such as those in Army camps, nursing homes, and prisons).

Households contacted for the survey were selected at random by a procedure known as random digit dialing, which ensures that households with unlisted telephone numbers, as well as those with listed numbers, are included in the sample.

All interviews were conducted during evening hours on weekdays and all day on weekends to ensure that both working as well as non-working segments of the population would be included.

Weighting Procedure The demographic characteristics of the random sample were compared with the most recent Census Bureau estimates and corrective weights were applied to ensure proper representation based on age, gender and educational attainment.

Percentages Not Totaling 100%

Responses were computerized and rounded off to the nearest whole percentage. As a result,

percentages in certain charts and columns may sometimes total slightly more or less than 100%. Also, in

certain charts and analyses, the results of those who said “don't know” or chose not to answer may have

been omitted.



Appendix 3

Report Bibliography Akin, T. et al. (1995). Character Education in America’s Schools. Innerchoice Publishing. Allen, W., Kilvington, M., and Horn, C., (May 2002). Using Participatory and Learning-Based Approaches for the Environment Management to Achieve Constructive Behavior Change, Landcare Research, Ministry of the Environment, Wellington. Asch, J. and B.M. Shore (1975). “Conservation behavior as the outcome of environmental education” Journal of Environmental Education 6(4): 25-33. Aspinwall, Brent, P. Harrell, (2002). Environmental Education Fund General Survey: A Survey of North Carolina Teachers, East Carolina University and Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, NC. Fall 2002 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, (2001). “Moving into the Educational Mainstream,” InfoBrief, Number 26, Washington, DC Athman, Julie and Martha C. Monroe, (2003). Environment-Based Education in Florida High Schools: The Effects on Student’ Critical Thinking and Achievement Motivation, (paper was developed for participating schools only and at this printing is not available for distribution) University of Florida, Gainesville, FL Battles, Denise, Reichard, James S., Rich, Fredick, J. and Franks Melvin E. (2001). “Environmental Literacy for All Students: Assessment of Environmental Science Courses in a New Core Curriculum” Geographical Society of American, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro GA. Berger, P.L. and R.J. Neuhaus, (1977). “o empower people: the role of mediating structures in public policy.” American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC. Bogan, Margaret, B; Kromrey, Jeffrey D; (Fall 1996). “Measuring the Environmental Literacy of High School Students,” Florida Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 36(1), Borden, R.J. and A.P. Schettino (1979). “Determinants of Environmentally Responsible Behavior,” Journal of Environmental Education 10(4) 35-39. Boyes, E., and Stanisstreet, M., (2001). “Knowledge About the Greenhouse Effect: Have College Students Improved”?, Research in Science and Technological Education, 19 (2). Boyes, E., and Stanisstreet, M., (2001) “Global Warming: What do High School Students Know 10 Years On”?, World Resource Review, 13 (2) 221-238. Boyes, E., and Stanisstreet, (2001), M., Plus ca Change, Plus c’est la Meme Chose: Research in Science and Technological Education, 19 (2): 205-221. Boyes, E., and Stanisstreet, M., (1993). “The Greenhouse Effect: Children’s Perceptions of Causes, Consequences and Cures, International Journal of Science Education, 15 (5) 531-552.



Chawla, L. (1998). “Significant Life Experiences Revisited: a Review of Research on Sources of Environmental Sensitivity. Journal of Environmental Education 29(3): 11-21. Council on Competitiveness (1998). Winning the Skills Race Washington, DC. Disinger, J. (1981). Environmental education in the K-12 schools: A national survey. In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.), Current Issues VII, The Yearbook of Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 141-156). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Disinger, J. (1989). The current status of environmental education in U.S. school curricula. Contemporary Education, 60(3), 126-136. Disinger, J.F., Roth, C.E. (1992, updated 2003). “Environmental Literacy,” ERIC Clearing-house for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education. CSMEE Digest 92 1. Elder, James L. (2003) A Field Guide to Environmental Literacy: Making Strategic Investments in Environmental Education, Environmental Education Coalition, Beverly MA. Ellis, Erin; Mc Wayne, Erick (2003). The State of Environmental Education in Washington Schools, New Horizons for Learning, Seattle WA. Falk, John. H., (Feb. 2002). “The Contribution of Free-Choice Learning to Public Understanding of Science,” INTERCIENCIA, (27) (2). Falk, John H., Lynn D. Dierking, (2002). Lessons Without Limit: How Free Choice Learning is Transforming Education, Alta Mira Press, New York, Fortner, R.W. and Mayer, V.J. (1991). “Repeated Measures of Students’ Marine Awareness,” Journal of Environmental Education 23 (1) 30-35. Gambro, J., & Switzky, H. (1994). A national survey of environmental knowledge in high school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 4-8. Gendall, P., Smith T.W., and Russell, D. (1995) “Knowledge of Scientific and Environmental Facts: a Comparison of Six Countries, Marketing Bulletin, 6, 65-74, New Zealand. Geok-Chin, T, Kim-Eng Lee, C. and Chuan, G.K. “A Survey of Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors of Students in Singapore” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 181-202, Grotzner, Tina A., (1993). “Children’s Understanding of Complex Causal Relationships in Natural Systems: A Research Study” Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge MA. Haddon, Mark A., (1995). Determining Environmental Knowledge and Awareness Related to Behavior in High School Students, Towson State University. Haley, Richard, (2002). What Do We Know and What Do We Think? (presentation for the 2002 New England Environmental Education Alliance Conference) Audubon New York, Albany NY. Hamline University: Center for Global Environmental Education, (2002). The Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy, St Paul, MN.



Hammit, P., Freimund, W., Watson, A. Brod, R., Monz, C., (1995). Responsible Environmental Behavior: Metaphoric Transference of Minimum Impact Technology. National Outdoor Leadership School Paper, Lander, WY. Heimlich, J. E., (1992, updated 2003). “Promoting Concern for the Environment,” Eric Clearing House for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. CSMEE Digests 92-2. Heimlich, J., Braus, J., Olivolo, B., McKeown-Ice, R., & and Barringer-Smith, L. (2001). Environmental Education and Pre-Service Teacher Preparation: A National Study. Unpublished research report, College of Natural Resources, Ohio State University. Hein, George E. (1998). Learning in the Museum. New York: Routledge. Hines, J.E. , Hungerford, H.R. and Tomera, A.N. (196-1987, Winter). “Analysis and Synthesis of Research in Responsible Environmental Behavior: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1-8. Hoody, Linda, (1995). The Educational Efficacy of Environmental Education: An Interim Report, State Education and Environmental Roundtable, San Diego, CA. Hoody, Linda L, Lieberman Gerald A, Closing the Achievement Gap, State Education and Environment Roundtable, San Diego, CA. 1998 Hungerford, H.R., et al. (1996). Investigating and Evaluation Environmental Issues and Actions: Skill Development Program –Teachers Edition Champaign, IL Stipes Publishing, L.L.C. Hungerford, H.R., et al. (Eds.) (1998). Essential Readings in Environmental Education, Champaign, IL Stipes Publishing, L.L.C. Hungerford, H.R., Volk, T.L., (1990). “Changing Learner Behavior Through Environmental Education,” The Journal of Environmental Education, 21(3): 8-21. Iozzi, L. (Ed.). (1981). Research in Environmental Education, 1971-1980. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. 214 762) Iozzi, L.A. (1989) “What Research Says to the Educator: Part One, Environmental Education and the Affective Domain”, Journal of Environmental Education, 20 (3), 2-9. Iozzi, L. (1989). What Research Says to the Educator; Part Two: Environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(4), 6-14. Iozzi, L. and Marcinkowski, T., (1990). Assessment of learning outcomes in environmental Education. In M. Maldeague (Editor), Methods and Techniques for Evaluating Environmental Education. UNESCO, Paris. Kansas Association for Conservation and Environmental Education, (1999). Environmental Education Standards for Kansas, Manhattan, KS. Kellert, Stephen R., Victoria Derr, (1998). A National Study of the Wilderness Experience, Yale University, New Haven CT. Lane M. (1996). Environmentally Responsible Behavior: Does it Really Matter What We Believe? Planning Fourm V. 6(1): 33-39.



Lieberman, G.A., and Hoody, L.L. (1998). Closing the Achievement Gap: Using the Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning. San Diego, California, State Education and Environment Roundtable. Manci, K., Carr, K., Morrone, M., (1999). “Environmental Literacy of Ohio Adults,” Ohio Journal of Science 99 (3): 57-61. Marcinkowski, T., Mrazek, R. (Eds.) (1996). Research in Environmental Education, 1981-1990. Washington, DC. North American Association for Environmental Education. Marcinkowski, T. (1998). Predictors of responsible environmental behavior: A review of three dissertation studies. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, and J. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 227-256). Champaign, IL: Stipes Pub. Co. Note: A revised version of this article was published in the 2001 edition of Essential Readings (pp. 247-277). Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11-21. Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, (2003). “Benchmarks on The Way to Environmental Literacy,” Boston, MA. McKeown-Ice, R., and May, T. (1995). Report of a national survey of pre-service environmental education within AACTE Colleges and Universities.Knoxville, KY: Unpublished Research Report; National Environmental Literacy Assessment Project; Energy, Environment and Resources Center; University of Tennessee - Knoxville. Monroe, M.C. and Kaplan, S. (1988). “When Words Speak Louder than Actions: Environmental Problem Solving in the Classroom,” Journal of Environmental Education, 19 (3) 38-41. Murphy, Tony P (2002). The Minnesota Report Card on Environmental Literacy, Hamline University, St.Paul, MN. Myers, G., Boyes, E., and Stanistreet, M., (1999) “Something in the Air: School Students Ideas About Air Pollution,” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 8: 108-119. National Environmental education & Training Foundation, (2002). Environmental Education and Educational Achievement: Promising Programs and Resources, Washington DC. National Environmental education & Training Foundation, (2002). Environmental Education: Resources at a Glance, Washington DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and the North American Association for Environmental Education, (2000). Environment-Based Education: Creating High Performance Schools and Students. Washington, DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and the North American Association for Environmental Education, (2001). Using Environment-based Education to Advance Learning Skills and Character Development, Washington, DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide, (1994). Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors of American Youth, Washington DC.



National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide, (1997). The National Report Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors, Washington DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide, (1998). The National Report Card on Environmental Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors, Washington DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide, (1999). The National Report Card on Safe Drinking Water Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviors, Washington DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper Starch Worldwide, (1999) Environmental Readiness for the 21st Century, Washington DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper, (2002). Lessons From the Environment, Washington DC. National Environmental Education & Training Foundation and Roper, (2002). Americans’ Low “Energy IQ:” A Risk to Our Energy Future, Washington DC. National Science Foundation, (2001). Science and Engineering Degrees by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 1990-1998, Arlington, VA. National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education, (2000). Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life and Society in the 21st Century, Arlington, VA. Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32. North American Association for Environmental Education (1999). Excellence in EE: Guidelines for Learning (K-12). Rock Spring GA. North American Association for Environmental Education and the Environmental Literacy Council, (2000). Environmental Studies in the K-12 Classroom: A Teachers View, Washington, DC Orr, D. W., (1992). Ecological Literacy, Albany, NY: State University of New York Pr. 85-95. Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. (2000). National Geographic Rivers Poll: Adults Final Results, National Geographic Society and River Network, Washington, DC. Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. (2000). National Geographic Rivers Poll: Children Final Results, National Geographic Society and River Network, Washington, DC. Peyton, R., & Hungerford, H. (1980). An assessment of teachers' abilities to identify, teach, and implement environmental action skills. In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.), Current Issues VI: The Yearbook of Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 155-172). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. Ramsey, J.M. and Hungerford, H.R. (1989). “The Effect of Issue Investigation and Action Training on Environmental Behavior in Seventh Grade Students,” Journal of Environmental Education, 23 (2), 35-45. Reeves, T., Affolter, J.M., Lo, C-P. (1998) The Implementation and Effects of Cognitive Tools in Environmental Literacy Courses, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.



Rickinson, M. (2001). Special Issue: Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 208-320. Roper. (2000). Green Gauge 2000: Rising Concerns, New York, NY. Roper. (2001). Green Gauge 2001: Americans Focus on the Environment, New York, NY. Roper. (2002). Green Gauge 2002: Americans Perspective on Environmental Issues: Yes …But, New York, NY. 2001 Ruskey, A., Wilke, R., & Beasley, T. (2001). A survey of the status of state-level environmental education in the United States - 1998 Update. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(3), 4-14. Schatz, Curt, “When Bambi Meets Godzilla: Bringing Environmental Education and Outdoor Recreation Together,” ERIC Digest (ED404088) Siemer, W.F. and T.L. Brown, (1997). Attitude and Behavior Change Associated with Participation Naturelink, Unit Publication, 97-1 Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca NY. Simmons, B. (1991). Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? An examination of nature and environmental center goals. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 16-21. Simmons, B. (ed.) (1995). The NAAEE Standards Project: Papers on the Development of Environmental Education Standards, Troy, OH, North American Association for Environmental Education. Smith-Sebasto. (1995). “The Effects of an Environmental Studies Course on Selected Variable Related to Environmentally Responsible Behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 26(4): 30-34. Stanisstreet, M., Boyes, E., (1994). “Children and the Environment: Awareness or Understanding? British Council Science Education Newsletter. 114: 1-3 Sward, L., & Marcinkowski, T. (2001). Environmental sensitivity: A review of the research 1980-1998. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, and J. Ramsey (Eds.). Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 277- 288). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing, L.L.C. Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education. (1978). Toward an Action Plan: A Report on the Tbilisi Conference on Environmental Education. A paper developed by the FIVE Subcommittee on Environmental Education. Washington DC. U.S. Government Printing Office, Stock No. 017-080-01838-1. University of Maryland Survey Research Center. (2000). Environmental Studies in the K-12 Classroom: A Teacher’s View, North American Association for Environmental Education and the Environmental Literacy Center, Washington DC. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Safe and Smart: Making After-School Hours Work for Kids. http://www.ed.gov/pubs/safeandsmart . Volk, T and B McBeth, (1999). Environmental Literacy in the United States, North American Association for Environmental Education, Rock Spring GA. Volk, T.L., Hungerford, H.R., Tomera A.N., (1984). “A National Study of Curriculum Needs as Perceived by Professional Environmental Educators,” Journal of Environmental Education 16(1): 10-19


http://www.ed.gov/pubs/safeandsmart


Volk, Trudi L, (1990). “The Importance of Learners Doing Research” Environmental Communicator, Washington, DC. September Wirthlin Group, Wirthlin (1995). Poll for Prudential. http://www.prudential.com/community/spirit/cmszz1001.html Zelezny, L. (2000). Educational Interventions that Improve Environmental Behaviors: a Meta Analysis. Journal of Environmental Education 31(1): 5-14



Appendix 4

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF

NEEDS ASSESSMENTS AND STATUS REPORTS IN EE

Compiled by Dr. Tom Marcinkowski, Florida Tech Author’s Note: while this bibliography contains a number of sources also listed in the preparation of this report, it prvides an important developmental look at how EE research has evolved over the years. We are grateful to Tom Marcinkowski for assembling it.

A. Curricular Programs and Materials Volk, T., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1984). A national survey of curriculum needs as perceived by professional environmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16(1), 10-19. [NOTE: Also see Dissertation Abstracts International, 1983, 44(5), 1327-A.]

Stevenson, R. (1986). Environmental education curricular materials: Do they reflect the contemporary rhetoric? In J. Perkins (Ed.), InternationalAspects of Environmental Education. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, Volume III (pp. 208-225). Troy,OH: The North American Association for Environmental Education.

Pomerantz, G. (1990-91). Evaluation of natural resource education materials: Implications for resource management. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(2), 16-23.

Rohwedder, R., et al. (1992). Environmental Education: Compendium for Energy Resources. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education and Others. [NOTE: California Department of Education has compiled compendia in a number of other topical areas, including: Water Resources (1992); Integrated Waste Management (1993); and Human Communities (1994).]

Andrews, E., & The Cooperative Extension National Review Team. (1992, 1995). Educating Young People about Water: A Guide to Goals and Resources. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and Environmental Education.

Boerschig, S., & DeYoung, R. (1993). Evaluation of selected recycling curricula: Educating the green citizen. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(3), 17-22.

Simmons, B. (Ed.). (1997, 1998). The Environmental Education Collection – A Review of Resources for Educators. Washington, DC: NAAEE. (Volume 1: 1997; Volumes 2 and 3: 1998).

Braus, J., et al. (1998). The Biodiversity Collection: A Review of Biodiversity Resources for Educators. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.

B. K-12 Programs

Disinger, J. (1972). A Directory of Programs and Projects in Environmental Education for Elementary and Secondary Schools. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. ED 071 881



Disinger, J., & Lee, B. (1973). A Directory of Programs and Projects in Environmental Education for Elementary and Secondary Schools (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. ED 086 558

Disinger, J. (1975). A Directory of Programs and Projects in Environmental Education for Elementary and Secondary Schools (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. ED 114 259

Disinger, J. (1976). A Directory of Programs and Projects in Environmental Education for Elementary and Secondary Schools (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. ED 135 669

Childress, R. (1976). Evaluation strategies and methodologies utilized in public school environmental education programs and projects - A report from a national study. In R. Marlett (Ed.), Current Issues in Environ-mental Education - II; Selected Papers from the Fifth Annual Conference of the National Association for Environmental Education (pp. 23-34). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Childress, R. (1978). Public school environmental education curricula: A national profile. The Journal of Environmental Education, 9(3), 2-10.

Disinger, J. (1979). A Directory of Programs and Projects in Environmental Education for Elementary and Secondary Schools (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. ED 187 515

Disinger, J. (1981). Environmental education in the K-12 schools: A national survey. In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.), Current Issues VII, The Yearbook of Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 141-156). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Disinger, J. (1989). The current status of environmental education in U.S. school curricula. Contemporary Education, 60(3), 126-136.

Gambro, J., & Switzky, H. (1994). A national survey of environmental knowledge in high school students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 4-8.

C. Non-Formal Programs

Chenery, M., & Hammerman, W. (1984/85). Current practice in the evaluation of Resident Outdoor Education Programs: Report of a national survey. The Journal of Environmental Education, 16(2), 35-42. Rakow, S., & Lehtonen, L. (1988). Environmental center educational programs: A national survey. Journal of Interpretation, 12(2), R1-R4.

Simmons, B. (1991). Are we meeting the goal of responsible environmental behavior? An examination of nature and environmental center goals. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(3), 16-21. D. Preservice Teacher Education Programs McKeown-Ice, R., and May, T. (1995). Report of a national survey of pre-service environmental education within AACTE Colleges and Universities. Knoxville, KY: Unpublished Research Report; National Environmental Literacy Assessment Project; Energy, Environment and Resources Center; University of Tennessee - Knoxville.



Heimlich, J., Braus, J., Olivolo, B., McKeown-Ice, R., & and Barringer-Smith, L. (2001). Environmental Education and Pre-Service Teacher Preparation: A National Study. Unpublished research report, College of Natural Resources, Ohio State University.

Plevyak, L., Bendixen-Noe, M., Henderson, J., Roth, R., & Wilke, R. (2001). Level of teacher preparation and implementation of EE: Mandated and non-mandated EE teacher preparation states. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(2), 28-36.

E. Inservice Teacher Education Programs

Peyton, R., & Hungerford, H. (1980). An assessment of teachers' abilities to identify, teach, and implement environmental action skills. In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.), Current Issues VI: The Yearbook of Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 155-172). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC.

Champeau, R., Gross, M., & Wilke, R. (1980). An assessment of teachers' understanding and use of 'Goals for Curriculum Development in Environmental Education.' In A. Sacks, et al. (Eds.), Current Issues VI: TheYearbook of Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 218-226). Columbus, OH: ERIC SMEAC.

Wilson, T. (1988). A study into the attainment of goals for environmental education through the inservice teacher education efforts of a university-based network of centers for environmental education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Association for Environmental Education, Orlando, FL.

Wade, K. (1994). National survey of EE teacher education. (Project funded under EPA Assistance Agreement No. N 901935-01-0). Ann Arbor, MI: NCEET, University of Michigan.

Lane, J., Wilke, R., Champeau, R., & Sivek, D. (1994). Environmental education in Wisconsin: A teacher survey. The Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 9-17.

Lane, J., Wilke, R., Champeau, R., & Sivek, D. (1995). Strengths and weaknesses of teacher environmental education preparation in Wisconsin The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 36-45.

F. State Agency Master Plans, Legislation and Programs *

Duenwald, L.P. (1972). A survey of the role of State Education Agencies in the support of environmental education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota, 1971). Dissertation Abstracts International, 32(9), 5236-B. UMI No. 72-08381.

Hildebrand, R.W. (1973). Emerging and potential state leadership roles in environmental education. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(8), 4004-A. UMI No. 73-01782.

Schaefer, D.L. (1972). The states and environmental education. (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1972). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33(6), 2623-A. UMI No. 72-32563.

Disinger, J., & Bousquet, W. (1982). Environmental education and the State Education Agencies: A report of a survey. The Journal of Environmental Education, 13(2), 13-22. (Note: Appendixed materials runs pp. 22-29)



Weiner, M. (1990). Mandates for environmental education in States and Provinces. Paper presented at the World Environment, Energy, and Economic Conference, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, October 18, 1990.

Environmental Education Associates. (annual). State-by-State Overview of Environmental Education Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

Marshall, K. (1993). Chapter 4: State-level curriculum guidelines: An Analysis; and Chapter 5: State-level curriculum guidelines: A listing. In R. Wilke, (Ed.), Environmental Education Curriculum Resource Handbook (pp. 105-142). Millwood, NY: Kraus International Publications. [NOTE: Publishing rights are held by Corwin Press (Sage Pub.), Thousand Oaks, CA] Kirk, M. (Ed.). (1996). 50 state survey shows “results”: States are making progress toward comprehensive environmental education programs. The Environmental Education Advocate, Winter 1996, pp. 1, 3-5.

Kirk, M. (1996). A Survey of the status of state level environmental education in the U.S. Stevens Point, WI: Unpublished research document, National Environmental Education Advancement Project, College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. (Note: Also see Hungerford, H., et al. (1998). Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 57-66). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing, L.L.C.) Holtz, R. (1996). Environmental education: A state survey. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(4), 9-11.

Ruskey, A., Wilke, R., & Beasley, T. (2001). A survey of the status of state-level environmental education in the United States - 1998 Update. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(3), 4-14.

* NOTE: This list does not include needs assessments and status reports done by/for individual states. A growing number of such analyses and reports have been prepared/published (e.g., WI, FL).

G. Federal Level Master Planning, Legislation and Programs

Disinger, J. (Ed.). (1978). Environmental Education Activities of Federal Agencies. Columbus, OH: ERIC SMEAC. Council on Environmental Quality. (1990). An assessment of Federal activities in environmental education. (Unpublished research document). Washington, DC: Author, Executive Office of the President.

Ad Hoc Working Group on Environmental Education and Training. (1993). Report to the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology’s (FCCSET) Committee on Education and Training. (Unpublished report). Washington, DC: FCCSET and Author. National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. (1994). Environmental education activities in Federal Government Agencies. (Unpublished report). Washington, DC: Author.

H. International Level Needs and Programs Unesco. (1978). Needs and Priorities in Environmental Education: An International Survey. Paris, France: Author.



Appendix 5

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH COLLECTIONS AND REVIEWS: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION, INTERPRETATION & COMMUNICATIONS

Ordered by Date of Publication, 1969 - present

Compiled by Dr. Tom Marcinkowski, Florida Tech Author’s Note: while this bibliography contains a number of sources also listed in the preparation of this report, it prvides an important developmental look at how EE research has evolved over the years. We are grateful to Tom Marcinkowski for assembling it. Graybeal, N. (1969). A bibliography of research related to conservation education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(2), 61-63. Witt, W. (1970). The annotated bibliography of conservation communications research. The Journal of Environmental Education, 1(3), 98-101. Roth, R., & Helgeson, S. (1972). A Review of Research Related to Environmental Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. ED 068 359) Voelker, A., et al. (1973). Environmental Education-Related Research, 1969-1972. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. ED ) Bennett, D. (1974). A report on research and development in environmental education. Paper presented at the Forty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL, April, 1974. (ERIC Document No. ED 091 218) Roth, R. (1976). A Review of Research Related to Environmental Education, 1973-1976. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. 135 647) Winzler, E., & Cherem, G. (1978). An Interpretive Research Bibliography. Derwood, MD: Association of Interpretive Naturalists. Guillerie, R., & Schoenfeld, C. (1979). An Annotated Bibliography of Environmental Communications Research and Commentary, 1969- 1979. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. 184 852) Hanselman, D., et al. (Annual, 1978-1982). Recent Master’s Thesis Work in Environmental Education and Communications. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC, and Troy, OH: NAEE. ... & Yuen, C. (1978) IRC 068E ED 226 973 ... & Debes, P. (1979) IRC 069E ED 180 770 ... & Hoefler, B. (1980) IRC 070E ED 191 655 ... & Field, K. (1981) IRC 071E ED 201 506 ... & Kogut, B. (1982) ED 223 431 Swan, M., & Stilson, J. (1980). Dissertations in ECO-Education. (Taft Campus Occasional Paper XV.) Oregon, IL: Lorado Taft Field Campus, Northern Illinois University



Iozzi, L. (Ed.). (1981). Research in Environmental Education, 1971-1980. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. 214 762) Peyton, R. (1981). EE research update. Presentation at the Midwest Regional Environmental Education Conference, Wisconsin Dells, WI, September, 1981. Hanselman, D., & Ennist, L. (1983). Recent Graduate Works and Programs in Environmental Education and Communications. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC, and Troy, OH: NAEE. (ERIC Document No. ED 244 790) Hungerford, H., Tomera, A., & Wilson, R. (1983). An analysis of the emphasis placed on overt environmental behavior (intervention) and allied variables in studies abstracted in Research in Environmental Education, 1971-1980. In A, Sacks, L. Iozzi, & R. Wilke (Eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 183-197). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. Wilke, R., & Leatherman, J. (1983). Conclusions and generalizations drawn from Research in Environmental Education,1971-1980 regarding teacher training pre-service, teacher training in-service, community resource use, and field trips. In A, Sacks, L. Iozzi, & R. Wilke (Eds.), Current Issues in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies (pp. 183- 197). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. Hines-Stone, J. (Annual, 1984-1993). Recent Graduate Works and Programs in Environmental Education and Communications. Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC, and Troy, OH: NAEE. ... 1984: Vol. VII, ED ... 1989: Vol. XI ED ... 1985: Vol. VIII, ED ... 1991: Vol. XII ED ... 1986: Vol. IX, ED ... 1993: Vol. XIII ED ... 1987: Vol. X, ED Iozzi, L. (Ed.). (1984). A Summary of Research in Environmental Education, 1971-1982. The Second Report of the National Commission on Environmental Education Research. (Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, Vol. #2). Columbus, OH: ERIC/SMEAC. (ERIC Document No. ED 259879) Gross, M., & Moore, D. (1985). An Interpretive Research Bibliography, 1978-1984. Stevens Point, WI: College of Natural Resources, University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. Hines, J., Hungerford, H., & Tomera, A. (1988). An analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18(2), 1-8. Also see: Hines, J.M. (1985). An analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior. (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 46(3), 665-A. MI No. DER85-10027. Hungerford, H., (1989). What we “know” about citizenship behavior in environmental education. Carbondale, IL: Unpublished research document, Science Education Program, Department of Curriculum & Instruction, Southern Illinois University. Iozzi, L. (1989). What research says to the educator; Part One: Environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(3), 3-9.



Iozzi, L. (1989). What research says to the educator; Part Two: Environmental education and the affective domain. The Journal of Environmental Education, 20(4), 6-14. Newhouse, N. (1990). Implications of attitude and behavior research for environmental conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26-32. Leeming, F., Dwyer, W., Porter, B., & Cobern, M. (1993). Outcome research in environmental education: A critical review. The Journal of Environmental Education, 24(4), 8-21. Smith-Sebasto, N. (Ed.). (Biennial, 1996- ). Recent Graduate Works and Graduate Programs in Environmental Communications and Environmental Education. Troy, OH: NAAEE ... 1996: Vol. XIV, ISBN 1-884008-27-5 ... 1997: Vol. XV, ISBN Marcinkowski, T., & Mrazek, R., (Eds.). (1996). Research in Environmental Education, 1981-1990. Troy, OH: NAAEE. Volk, T., & McBeth, W. (1997). Environmental Literacy in the United States. (A Report Funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Submitted to the Environmental Education and Training Parternship, NAAEE). Washington, DC: NAAEE. Marcinkowski, T. (1998). Predictors of responsible environmental behavior: A review of three dissertation studies. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, and J. Ramsey (Eds.), Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 227-256). Champaign, IL: Stipes Pub. Co. Note: A revised version of this article was published in the 2001 edition of Essential Readings (pp. 247-277). Chawla, L. (1998). Significant life experiences: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11-21. Hart, P., & Nolan, K. (1999). A critical analysis of research in environmental education. Studies in Science Education, 34, 1-69. Zelezny, L. (1999). Educational interventions that improve environmental behaviors: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 31(1), 5-14. Holsman, R. (2001). What works ... Documenting standard practices for aquatic resource education. A Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Region 5, Federal Aid. Hadley, MA: Federal Aid Program, Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Rickinson, M. (2001). Special Issue: Learners and learning in environmental education: A critical review of the evidence. Environmental Education Research, 7(3), 208-320. Sward, L., & Marcinkowski, T. (2001). Environmental sensitivity: A review of the research 1980-1998. In H. Hungerford, W. Bluhm, T. Volk, and J. Ramsey (Eds.). Essential Readings in Environmental Education (pp. 277- 288). Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing, L.L.C.



Appendix 6

Related NEETF/Roper Data Trends The NEETF/Roper report card series was initiated in 1993. For the first three years the surveys were conducted through the conservation programs of Times Mirror Magazines. At that time the survey focused almost entirely on public attitudes and perceptions and devoted little space to knowledge or behavior-related research. NEETF assumed responsibility for the survey in 1996 and, as noted above, initiated a scientific approach to assessing knowledge and behavior in 1997. NEETF also worked with Roper in 1994 to complete a survey of youth. Over the ten-year period this data has been collected and assessed, certain trends are worth noting. They are as follows:

Public Support for the Environment Survey after survey reports that Americans feel high levels of support for environmental protection. How environmental literacy affects this support has several interesting twists. There are positive correlations between higher environmental knowledge levels and active support for environmental causes. But there are also correlations between lower education levels and their support for more government solutions to environmental problems. As a usual matter, some ___% of Americans describe themselves as environmental supporters. Throughout the ten-year period, the NEETF/Roper studies and supporting data have shown high levels of public support. The question asked most consistently in the NEETF/Roper studies is whether people would “choose environmental protection or economic development if a choice had to be made.” The answer is usually from 65% to 70% of the public who would choose the environment, compared to roughly 25% who would select economic development. For the most part, this support has remained high and steady. It has, however, shown a few points of fluctuation during times when economic conditions are tougher. The regular recording of high levels of support is nonetheless comforting for those who enthusiastically endorse environmental protection. Roper researchers would caution readers to be aware that the balance of support shifts when other matters of importance to the public are woven into the mix. Three years of the data, for example, varied the question about what one would choose by looking at the environment protection when compared to property owners’ rights. In one example the question was framed as the protection of an endangered bird species vs. the ability of a logging company to cut down the trees in the bird’s habitat.

134


Bird species protection or logging company rights? 1992 – 68% bird – 23% company 1995 – 66% bird – 30% company 1996 – 64% bird – 30% company The public varied the bird-example response only slightly from the more general question about choosing the environment or the economy. Perhaps this is due to a sense that company’s rights are not as valued as individual rights in our society. To test this, a second series of NEETF/Roper questions looked at the public’s views on balancing protecting a wetland vs. the interests of a “destitute landowner’s” right to sell land for construction. Wetland protection or landowner’s rights? 1992 – 48% wetland – 40% landowner 1995 – 45% wetland – 50% landowner 1996 – 43% wetland – 50% landowner The infusion of the example of a destitute landowner shifted the balance away from the environment and perhaps shows the importance, in the public’s mind, of finding ways that the environment can be aligned with other issues of public importance such as freedom, individual rights, family health and more.

High Level of Support for the Role of Government In many ways Americans love to hate (or at least mistrust) the government. But when it comes to environmental protection, they see the government as playing an important role. Much national debate occurs over the need for and scope of environmental laws in the United States. Laws regulating air and water pollution, protecting natural areas and wetlands and conserving endangered species are often subjects of heated public discussion, as these laws have both environmental and economic impact. Most Americans feel that government — federal, state, and local — should have some responsibility for protecting the environment. After a large decline in the early 1990s, the percentage saying that environmental laws and regulations do not go far enough has remained steady for the past six years, holding at a few percentage points below 50%. The plurality of Americans hold the “not gone far enough” position (46%), while one-third (32%) hold the view that current laws have struck “about the right balance.” Fewer than 1 in 5 adults (15%) say that current regulations “go too far.” For now, the public is settled in these three positions.

135


Figure: Opinion of Environmental Laws and Regulations

17

10

54

21

1510

53

23

16

8

43

29

22

6

45

28

19

47

26

16

10 8 8

46

32

15

63%

10 9

46

17

29

16

29

47

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2

Not Gone About the Gone Too Far Don’t Know Far Enough Right Balance

Question wording: There are differing opinions about how far we've gone with environmental protection laws and regulations. At the present time, do you think environmental protection laws and regulations have gone too far, not far enough, or have struck about the right balance?

The most significant shift over a decade of data gathering came early in 1995 when the number of people saying they supported the “not gone far enough” position went from a solid majority to a plurality. The importance of this shift was the corresponding rise in the number of people who feel we have achieved the “right balance” in our laws and regulations concerning environmental protection. Viewers of this data often focus on the relatively small number of people who feel environmental laws and regulations have “gone too far” as an indicator that a majority of people support environmental regulation. Others are more conservative in their interpretation and feel the “right balance” people and the “too far” people should be added together. When that is done, the public’s view of the regulation pros and cons comes out as a statistical dead heat, which might explain the heated debates we see in this arena. The environmental gender gap is again evident for this topic: Women (49%) are significantly more likely than men (42%) to say that current laws and regulations do not go far enough, while more men (20%) than women (11%) state that current laws go too far. (The two sexes are equally likely to say that current laws strike about the right balance: 32% of men and 31% of women.) Other Roper data confirms this pattern, with men more likely than women to say there is too much government regulation of subjects as varied as cable television, nuclear energy, fuel economy standards for cars, and the use of pesticides and herbicides. At the same time, women are more likely than men to say current laws do not go far enough for the disposal of toxic wastes, airline safety, prescription drugs, and the use of pesticides and herbicides.1

1 Roper Starch Worldwide Inc., Roper Reports, August 1998.

136


With regard to age, the percentage saying that laws for protecting the environment do not go far enough decreases from a majority among 18-34 year olds (51%) to 38% among those aged 65 and over. At the same time, the percentage holding the “gone too far” viewpoint increases from 9% among 18-34 year olds to one-fourth of those aged 65 and over (26%). These results are in-line with attitudes relating to a choice between the environment and the economy. Differences by gender and age toward environmental laws will need to be considered when enacting new laws or enforcing existing laws, as all Americans need to understand the benefits and consequences of environmental legislation.

Figure: Attitudes Toward Environmental Laws, by Gender and Age

Extent of Current Environmental Laws

Gender

Age

Total Men Women 18-34

35-44

45-64

65+

% % % % % % % Gone too far 15 20 11 9 15 16 26 Not far enough 46 42 49 51 45 45 38 Struck about the right balance 32 32 31 33 33 32 25 Don’t know 7 6 8 7 6 6 12 From 1997 to 2000, however, the proportion of each sex or age subgroup giving the “not gone far enough” response is unchanged, evidence that Americans have settled into their opinions on this issue. NEETF Roper findings on whether the public thinks more funding should be shifted to environmental programs.

1992 – 66% 1993 -- 59% 1994 – 63% 1995 – 56% 1996 – 58%

137


Public Motivation: Government Protecting the

Environment to Protect Health In America, the strongest support is for regulations is for the protection of water and air from pollution. When asked to consider laws for the protection of five specific environmental issues, Americans clearly rank two as more important than the others—water and air quality. Though 46% say that environmental laws overall have not gone far enough, 70% say that environmental laws and regulations to prevent water pollution have not gone far enough. And 63% say the same thing of laws to prevent air pollution. By comparison, 50% believe current laws do not go far enough for the protection of wild or natural areas. For the other two issues, protection of wetlands and protection of endangered species, fewer than 50% agree that current laws do not go far enough. Other Roper data confirms this pattern, with a majority of Americans saying current laws to regulate the quality of the nation’s air and the quality of the nation’s water do not go far enough. It may be that the higher level of support for air and water quality programs, as compared to other issues, is due to the perceived adverse effect of bad air and water on human health. However, as with environmental regulations overall, support for the position that current laws do not go far enough has eroded somewhat for each of the five issues since the first National Report Card study in 1992. Still, these proportions have been stable since 1995, again an indication that Americans have settled into their opinions on environmental issues.

Figure: Current Regulation of Specific Environmental Issues

GT

one oo Far

Ab ut thRight Ba

Not Gone Far Enough

o e lance

(a)

63

50

44

3937

32

36

26

225

7

11

11

20

70%

69% 79%

62 72

52 59

46 53

42 51

Not Gone Fa 1999

Water Pollution

Air Pollution

Wild or Natural Areas

Wetlands

Endangered Species

Question wording: Thinking now about some specific areas, at the present time, do you think laws and regulations for(INSERT ISSUE) have gone too far, not far enough, or have struck about the right balance?

138


As expected, opinions differ within gender, age and community subgroups as to the efficacy of current laws for specific environmental issues. Here are some key patterns:

Gender: For water pollution, air pollution, the protection of wild areas, and the protection of endangered species, women opt for the “not gone far enough” option significantly more often than men (74% vs. 65% for water and 69% vs. 56% for air). At the same time, more men than women say regulations already go too far for the protection of endangered species, wetlands and wild areas, and air pollution. Men (27%) are nine percentage points more likely than women (18%) to say that current laws to prevent water pollution have struck the right balance, and nine points more likely to state that air pollution laws have struck the right balance (31% vs. 22%).

Age: Americans age 18-34 are more likely than those older than 65 to say current laws for the five specific environmental issues do not go far enough, while those 65 and over are more likely than the youngest adults to say current laws go too far for protecting endangered species, wetlands and wild areas. Again, as the younger, pro-environment American population ages, the not- gone-far-enough and the struck-the-right-balance positions will likely grow in popularity, perhaps changing the outlook for future environmental laws and regulations.

Community Type: Urban residents are especially likely to state that current laws for all five issues do not go far enough, while rural residents are especially likely to state that regulations for protecting endangered species, wetlands, and wild areas already go too far. Rural Americans are more likely than urban Americans to say current laws to reduce water and air pollution have struck about the right balance. These attitudes may relate to the relative impact that environmental regulations have on the jobs and leisure activities of rural and urban Americans.

Trends By Key Environmental Health Issue

Water Pollution: Support for the “current laws do not go far enough” position with regard to water pollution has been declining over time (-9 percentage points), surprising given that much research shows that water quality has a clear impact on human health. Agreement that current regulations are insufficient to protect water from pollution is decreasing most dramatically among four subgroups: Americans age 65 and over, down 21 percentage points; males, down 13 points; residents of Western states, down 11 points; and residents of Southern states, down 10 points.

139


Figure: Trend Data: Water Pollution Laws ‘Do Not Go Far Enough’, by Gender, Age and Region

Gender Age Region

Total

Male Fe-

male 18-34

35-44

45-64

65+

North- East

Mid- west

South

West

% % % % % % %2000 70 65 74 73 72 68 63 68 70 71 69 1999 69 65 72 71 69 69 64 69 63 73 67 §

1993 77 73 80 80 78 75 69 73 73 80 79 1992 79 78 79 80 81 71 84 76 77 81 80

Change in ‘Do Not Go Far Enough’

-9 -13 -5 -7 -9 -3 -21 -8 -7 -10 -11

Change in ‘Struck Right Balance’ since 1992

+9 +11 +7 +5 +10 +8 +14 +10 +9 +7 +11

Americans’ concern about insufficient regulations to protect water from pollution is supported by data in Roper’s annual Green Gauge report. When asked about the seriousness of 29 environmental issues, the top two are contamination of drinking water and water pollution from industrial waste. 2

Air Pollution: Though still a majority opinion, Americans’ agreement that current regulations to fight air pollution do not go far enough is also decreasing over time, falling 9 points from 1992 to 2000. The decrease is most pronounced among two subgroups: Americans age 35-44, down 14 percentage points; and males, down 12 points.

2 Green Gauge 1999, Roper Starch Worldwide, 1999.

140


Figure : Trend Data: Air Pollution Laws ‘Do Not Go Far Enough’, by Gender, Age and Region

Gender Age Region

Total

Male

Fe- male

18-34

35-44

45-64

65+

North- East

Mid- west

South

West

% % % % % % % % % % % 2000 63 56 69 71 58 58 63 60 61 64 65 1999 62 56 67 67 61 62 52 65 59 65 58 § 1993 71 68 73 76 72 68 61 75 63 74 69 1992 72 68 75 76 72 66 72 70 69 72 75

Change in ‘Do Not Go Far Enough’

-9 -12 -6 -5 -14 -8 -9 -10 -8 -8 -10

Change in ‘Struck Right Balance’ since 1992

+8 +9 +6 +4 +13 +7 +6 +8 +10 +4 +12

Misplaced Trust? For state and national issues, people seem to want to feel that the government is reliably acting in their best interest. They may get cranky with the government for meddling in their lives, but they rely on the government to protect them from environmental harm. But lack of environmental knowledge can support unfounded reliance on the government as well. One overarching NEETF/Roper 1998 finding, for example, is that a majority of the people will assume the government is attending to its environmental health and safety needs even when it is not. We asked Americans about whether they thought a) some agency of the government tested industrial and household chemicals for environmental safety, b) if tap water was frequently tested for certain contaminants such as pesticides, and c) if some agency of the government tested bottled drinking water. None of these statements is true. Here is what we found out about:

141


Figure: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving Myth Response

Content of True/False Question

Percentage Who Gave Myth Response

Government testing of industrial and household chemicals 65%

Testing of tap water for contaminants 59%

Government testing of bottled water 51%

Unlike several of the multiple-choice questions, responses to the true/false questions do not vary by level of self-reported environmental knowledge. The percentage giving the myth response varies little by gender (only for government testing of industrial and household chemicals, which is higher among men, 70%, than women, 61%) or region (only for government testing of bottled water does one region—the South, 58%, stand out from the rest of the nation), while no consistent trends are evident by age (though 59% of those age 18-34 give the myth response for government testing of bottled water, compared to 51% overall).

Agreement with the myth choice decreases significantly as education level increases.

Figure: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving Myth Response by Education

Education Content of True/False Question

Total Myth Response

High School or

Less

Some College

College Graduate

% % % % Government testing of industrial and household chemicals 65 66 69 60

Testing of tap water for contaminants

59 59 60 59

Government testing of bottled water 51 53 55 40

142


There are some subgroup differences in responses to the true/false questions compared to the multiple choice questions. For instance college graduates are more likely than those with less education to give the correct response for replacement of extinct species, government testing of bottled water, and government testing of industrial and household chemicals.

Figure: True/False Questions: Percentage Giving Correct Answer

Content of True/False Question

Percentage Who Answered Question

Correctly Government testing of bottled water 42%

Testing of tap water for contaminants 35%

Government testing of industrial and household chemicals

27%

The 1998 NEETF/Roper Survey’s true/false questions looked at people’s perceptions of how protected they are by government. In general, Americans who otherwise may question government involvement in private matters expect the government to protect public health and the environment. Highlights of the three true/false questions generally answered incorrectly demonstrate this reliance by the public.

-Industrial and household chemicals are routinely tested and approved for safe use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or other federal agency.

Two out of three Americans (65%) assume this statement is true even though it is not. Only 27% gave the correct response and 8% did not know. Those who live in the West have a clearer grasp of this fact, although 57% (still a majority) make the incorrect assumption.

-Tap Water is routinely tested and filtered to remove contamination from livestock and pesticide run-off.

A significant majority of Americans (59%) thinks this statement is true. However, water utilities do not routinely test for these two forms of water pollution. Moreover, most water treatment systems cannot filter out these pollutants due to dated technology. Indeed, most of the water plant filtering systems in use in America today are unable to screen out chemicals and such chlorine-resistant micro-organisms as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. The testing of drinking water certainly takes place on a regular basis and water utilities are diligent in trying to provide safe and pure water to the public. But, there are certain pollutants that routinely get through the treatment systems and a majority of the public does not recognize this fact.

-No government agency tests bottled water for safety and purity.

143


More than half of Americans (51%) believe this statement to be false. They think (incorrectly) that bottled water is tested for safety and purity. Just 42% of Americans know it is not tested by a government agency. This misapprehension is ironic because the survey research indicates that many people turn to bottled water because of a lack of faith in the purity of tap water.

Overall, these true/false statements and the public’s response to them indicate high levels of faith in the government’s protection of public health and safety, even when such faith is largely unfounded. Perhaps one of the most pervasive environmental myths of this decade is the notion that people are being protected when they are not.

How Land-based Government Regulation Fares Protection of Endangered Species: Support for the “current laws do not go far enough” position with regard to endangered species, perhaps the most contentious environmental issue facing the nation, has also been declining over time. Agreement that current regulations are insufficient to protect endangered species has decreased 12 percentage points since 1992. Of the five issues tested in the survey, the belief that laws to protect endangered species do not go far enough gets the least support (39%). Women (42%) are significantly more likely than men (36%) to feel this way, and urban residents (45%) are 10 points more likely than rural residents to feel that endangered species laws should go farther. At the same time, the proportion of all Americans saying these laws have now struck the right balance has increased 6 points, to 37% since 1992.

Perceptions of laws for endangered species protection seem highly influenced by education and higher levels of environmental knowledge. While 42% of those with a high school education feel endangered species laws should go farther, just 36% of those with college degrees feel that way. Similarly, 47% of those who answered four or fewer questions in the survey’s environmental quiz correctly feel species protection laws do not go far enough, while just 30% who answered nine or more questions correctly hold that opinion. This is the only issue exhibiting this pattern, perhaps because it is often painted in economic terms.

Protection of Wild or Natural Areas: Opinions of regulations to protect wild or natural areas follow the pattern for environmental regulations overall: women, younger Americans and urban residents are the most likely to say current laws do not go far enough, while men, older Americans, and rural residents show greater than average support for the gone too far option (though this is still a minority view among these groups). Over time, the not gone far enough position has fallen 9 percentage points, while the right balance choice has risen 9 points.

A majority of women (54%) support more regulations for the protection of wild or natural areas as compared to 45% for men. A similar point spread exists between urban residents (54%) and rural residents (44%).

144


Protection of Wetlands: For the most part, wetlands regulations also have the same levels of support as environmental regulations overall, with women, younger Americans, and urban residents the most likely to say current laws do not go far enough, while men, older Americans, and rural residents are above average in their support for the gone-too-far option. Since 1992, the “not-gone- far-enough” position has decreased 9 percentage points, while the proportion saying current laws strike the right balance has increased 8 points.

Will Technology Save the Environment?

Throughout the 20th century, technology was often viewed as a panacea for society’s ills. This belief has long been applied to environmental issues, in a hope that scientists or engineers will discover a way to slow global warming or find an organism that changes polluted water into potable water. Many Americans seem to be buying into this belief, as 66% agree with the statement “technology will find a way of solving environmental problems.” While this shows some optimism among the public that solutions to environmental problems can be found, it also shows that the public is turning outward, rather than inward, for these solutions. A mix of legal, technological and educational strategies will be needed to solve environmental problems.

Figure: Will Technology Save the Environment?

Technology will find away of solvingenvironmental

problems

66% 31%

Agree Disagree

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 2000

58% 60% 59% 61% 62% 63% 66%

Question wording: Please indicate for each of the following statements whether you strongly agree, mostly agree, mostly disagree, or strongly disagree.

Though overall agreement is similar among men (67%) and women (65%), men are significantly more likely to “strongly agree” (26% vs. 17%)

Roper survey research now shows that in 2002 and 2003, terrorism trumped all other national concerns including the environment. Since the terrorism related events of 2001 and 2002, the environment has become a second-tier public issue having moved out of the top ten issues that Americans say they are personally concerned about. The

145


percentage of people saying they are personally concerned about air and water pollution declined from 22% in 2000 to 14% in 2002. The Roper Green Gauge 2002 report finds that concern over air and water pollution actually dropped from the 6th-ranked public issue in America (behind crime, having enough money to pay bills, behaviors of young people, high prices and inflation and others) to the 12th-ranked issue in 2002. Terrorism, which did not have a ranking, moved to number one spot and relations with foreign countries moved from the 11th position to the 4th. Energy concerns also dropped dramatically moving out of the top ten issues that concern Americans. The 2002 Green Gauge continues to show that pollution is the top environmental concern chosen by nearly 60% of respondents but with the exception of the number of people listing “the Greenhouse Effect” as a serious concern (up four points), all other issues involving pollution and energy are down several points. Water pollution being listed as a serious environmental concern is down seven points and air pollution is down six. The 2002 Green Gauge report also finds that fewer people are participating in environmental activities on a regular basis since 2001. The number of people frequently trying to save electricity in the home is down seven points to 58% and most other behavior categories are down a few percentage points. The study also finds that the 35% of Americans who “pay attention to the environmental records of large companies” has dropped five points to 30%. Importantly, though a majority (61%) of Americans are considered by Roper to be “information seekers” who “sometimes or often read an article, watch a television show, or use some other resource to seeks out information about the environment,” the number doing so has declined six percentage points since 2001. Exactly how the long-term concern about terrorism and homeland security will continue to affect public support for the environment and for environmental education is not fully known, but it is already evident that it is having a significant impact.

146

understanding environmental literacy in america...understanding environmental literacy kevin j....

Documents